Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?

97 views
Skip to first unread message

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:00:53 PM1/30/19
to
What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?

I posit the most brilliant marketing move I've ever seen in my entire life,
was when Apple turned a dead Chinese lady into sheer marketing propaganda.

It was the most brilliant marketing move I've ever seen in my entire life.

*What do _you_ think was the most brilliant marketing move by Apple?*

nospam

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:06:51 PM1/30/19
to
In article <q2toct$et8$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?

socks.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:08:04 PM1/30/19
to
On 2019-01-30 7:00 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
>
> I posit the most brilliant marketing move I've ever seen in my entire life,
> was when Apple turned a dead Chinese lady into sheer marketing propaganda.

You "posit"!

Very good?

Do you have any evidence?

See, this is what adults do: discuss the facts.

So:

What is the "brilliant marketing move"?

What did it consist of?

:-)

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:37:17 PM1/30/19
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:08:02 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> What is the "brilliant marketing move"?

Hi Alan Baker,

This is the sheer brilliance of Apple Marketing Propaganda
o Make the user _feel_ safe
o At a cost to the consumer (that Apple benefits from)
o Without actually making the consumer any safer than they were prior

Now _that_, is sheer brilliance!'
o Apple Launches Third-Party USB Charger 'Takeback Program'
<https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/05/apple-launches-third-party-usb-charger-takeback-program/>

*Apple turned a dead woman into a huge PROPAGANDA coup!*

First, some brilliant keywords:
o unauthorized chargers
o non-authorized chargers
o third-party chargers
o counterfeit chargers
etc.

To be replaced with...
o properly designed chargers
o for a short period of time
o for a fee

Bearing in mind that Apple users don't actually know how to _be_ safe
o Apple users just want Apple to make them _feel_ safe (IMHO)

This is the sheer brilliance of Apple Marketing Propaganda
o *Apple turned a dead woman into a huge PROPAGANDA coup!*
o By making the consumer _feel_ safe
o At cost to the consumer
o Without actually making the consumer _any_ safer than prior!

Now that's brilliance!

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:43:41 PM1/30/19
to
On 2019-01-30 7:37 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:08:02 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What is the "brilliant marketing move"?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> This is the sheer brilliance of Apple Marketing Propaganda
> o Make the user _feel_ safe
> o At a cost to the consumer (that Apple benefits from)
> o Without actually making the consumer any safer than they were prior

None of that answers my question.

>
> Now _that_, is sheer brilliance!'
> o Apple Launches Third-Party USB Charger 'Takeback Program'
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/05/apple-launches-third-party-usb-charger-takeback-program/>

Look! Something actually resembling a fact!

>
> *Apple turned a dead woman into a huge PROPAGANDA coup!*
>
> First, some brilliant keywords:
> o unauthorized chargers

What makes that brilliant? Also, that "keyword" doesn't appear in your
source.

> o non-authorized chargers

Nor does that one.

> o third-party chargers

Nor that one. Although they do use the phrase "third party adapters", so
partial marks.

> o counterfeit chargers

Another word that does appear... ...but that wasn't used by Apple.

> etc.

Or any of the others?

By the way, you DO realize you could have linked to what Apple actually
DID say, right?

<https://www.apple.com/support/usbadapter-takeback/>


>
> To be replaced with...
> o properly designed chargers

OK. How is that bad?

> o for a short period of time

OK. They should give out this largess forever, should they?

> o for a fee

Right. They are providing something to remedy a situation that they
didn't cause... ...for a price.

>
> Bearing in mind that Apple users don't actually know how to _be_ safe
> o Apple users just want Apple to make them _feel_ safe (IMHO)

Assertions only.

>
> This is the sheer brilliance of Apple Marketing Propaganda
> o *Apple turned a dead woman into a huge PROPAGANDA coup!*
> o By making the consumer _feel_ safe
> o At cost to the consumer
> o Without actually making the consumer _any_ safer than prior!

Do you have a single report of an Apple power adapter killing anyone?
Even injuring anyone?

>
> Now that's brilliance!
>

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:58:24 PM1/30/19
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:43:39 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> OK. They should give out this largess forever, should they?

Ah ... think about what you just said - but use the mind of an adult.
o largesse
o forever

Do you realize it was _all_ just an Apple marketing propaganda ploy?
o Marketing gimmicks have a short lifetime, realistically.

If Apple actually _cared_ about consumer safety
o They'd offer that "deal" (to buy an Apple charger at reasonable cost) forever.

Remember ... the sheer brilliance of this marketing gimmick
o Apple turned a dead lady into a brilliant marketing campaign
o By making the customer _feel_ safe
o Without ever actually ensuring that the customer is any safer
o At cost to the customer ($10 plus a working charger worth about $10)

Notice the brilliance!
o This entire marketing campaign reeks of brilliance

The customer trades in about $20 in value for a $20 Apple charger
o Which is no safer than the original charger (for all anyone _tested_)
o And yet, Apple made the (clearly ignorant) customer _feel_ safe

How's _that_ for sheer marketing brilliance!

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 11:00:35 PM1/30/19
to
Sorry, but if you want an adult discusion:

Stop cutting my replies without addressing what I said.

Stop repeating assertions you've already made.
OK. They should give out this largess forever, should they?

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 11:27:02 PM1/30/19
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:00:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Do you have a single report of an Apple power adapter killing anyone?
> Even injuring anyone?

Hi Alan Baker,

You will never hear me say Apple is not BRILLIANT in *brand* marketing!

Check out this photo below I took, just now, for you, of my non-authorized
chargers next to my authorized chargers, and my non-authorized cables next
to my authorized cables, next to an iPad and an iPhone (just for context):
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

Those are _real_ devices.
o They are actual devices - which is all that matters - in the real world.

Notice those are _not_ marketing props.
o They're not exploded diagrams of marketing gimmicks, Alan Baker.

Those are my _real_ devices.
o That's what we're talking about here - the real world.

While that photo contains just _some_ of my very many USB chargers.
o Some in that picture are horridly unsafe "unauthorized" chargers, and,
o Some in that picture are those fantastically safe "authorized" chargers.

Which is which?
o How do you know?

HINT: That's the sheer brilliance of the Apple Marketing campaign.
o *They managed to turn a dead woman into a brilliant marketing coup!*

BTW, contrary to what your Dunning-Kruger mind simply fabricated...
o I never once said, nor intimated that Apple chargers are killing people.

In that picture above, you see both authorized & unauthorized chargers
o Where's your evidence that my unauthorized chargers are less safe?
o Where's your evidence that my authorized chargers above are safer?

Do you see the sheer brilliance of Apple's marketing campaign?
o They made the consumer _feel_ safe
o By trading in about $20 in value for a $20 Apple "authorized" charger
o Which, as far as was tested, is no safer than my other chargers are.

*What makes my "unauthorized" charger less safe than my "authorized" one?*
o That! Is the sheer brilliance of the time-limited Apple marketing campaign!

Apple pulled off the coup of all coups by BRANDING their chargers as safe!
o Hence, by DEFINITION, the unsafe chargers below, are the non-Apple chargers!
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

That's! Marketing! Brilliance!

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 11:36:07 PM1/30/19
to
On 2019-01-30 8:27 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:00:34 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Do you have a single report of an Apple power adapter killing anyone?
>> Even injuring anyone?
> H...

I told you, if you want to have an adult conversation:

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 11:47:18 PM1/30/19
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:36:04 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Do you have a single report of an Apple power adapter killing anyone?
> Even injuring anyone?

Hi Alan Baker,

You are not an adult if you do not comprehend the SUBJECT line above:
SUBJECT: *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*

Do you _comprehend_ that subject line, Alan Baker?
o The point of this thread is the sheer marketing brilliance of Apple.

*Is that or is that not the stated SUBJECT of this thread, Alan Baker?*
o If you are an adult, you will agree since only a child could disagree.

Given the marketing brilliance of Apple is the _point_ of this thread,
I am explaining, in detail, what that marketing brilliance is.

Look at this photo, Alan Baker, which exemplifies the brilliance!
--
NOTE TO ALAN BAKER:
o Before you reply with drivel, read & comprehend the SUBJECT line first!

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 12:04:01 PM1/31/19
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 22:06:54 -0500, nospam wrote:
> socks.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:15:25 -0500, nospam wrote:
> they pose a significant safety hazard and/or have poorly regulated
> output.

Hi nospam,

Responding to the more recent post of yours above on this topic...

*This is a very important post which _only_ adults will comprehend.*
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3344225charger03.jpg>

What's interesting, nospam, is that you _agree_ wholeheartedly with me!
o Your very words, unbeknownst to you, _prove_ you agree.
o I'll wager that you, yourself, don't even _comprehend_ that you agreed!

The fact is:
o *Apple turned a dead woman into a brilliant marketing branding coup!*

Let's see if _you_ can realize what you & I just said, nospam.
You just said, verbatim:
"they pose a significant hazard"
And, you said:
"they may have poorly regulated output".

Right?

Now, let's see, as an adult, what I said:
I said it was a "brilliant marketing coup"
And:
"Because it made people _feel_ safe"
By trading in "unauthorized" chargers...
for "authorized" chargers (hehhehheh).

My point is _clearly_ that there is absolutely nothing unsafe
about _my_ clearly unauthorized chargers!

In fact, for all _you_ know, nospam, they could be safer!

Clearly, I said "here's a picture of _my_ real-world chargers"
I then I clearly implied:
If I traded in the two non-authorized chargers,
Would an authorized charger be _any_ safer?

Where _every_ rational adult would _know_ the answer.
o Remember, my chargers are very real
o The point is they are NOT a cherry picked 1 out of a million
o That means my chargers are _not_ a marketing gimmick

My chargers happen to exist in the real world in droves.
o Not a cherry-picked bad charger - which is _all_ you know, nospam

Since that's _all_ you know, nospam, I realize you actually agree
o Because even you, nospam, know _my_ real chargers are safe!

To back that up, since I always speak reliable facts,
here's a picture of the certification seals of _my_ very real chargers...
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9611828charger02.jpg>

What you see there are four random chargers in my house:
1. Apple branded 5 Vdc, 1 Amp (small cube, "Made in India")
2. Apple branded 5.2 Vdc, 2.4 Amp (larger, "Made in China")
3. LG branded 9 Vdc, 1.8 Amp + 5Vdc, 1.8 Amp ("Made in Vietnam")
4. Volt branded 5-port 5 Vdc, 2.4 Amp ("Made in China")

*Are you going to go full DK on us & _dispute_ those facts?*
(Or can we _not_ waste our time disputing those are facts?)

Here's what one adult would say to another adult, nospam,
when we're discussing the "brilliance" of Apple MARKETING.

*ADULTS WILL NOTE THE LOGIC IN THE ARGUMENT BELOW*

Dear nospam,

Tell me _how_ you come to the conclusion that _my_
very real very real world actual real in my hands pile of
"unauthorized" chargers, are _any_ less safe than those
authorized chargers in my hand that happen to be
"Designed by Apple in California"?

*NOTE TO ADULTS:*
I posit the _only_ way nospam can make that claim is to
actually use the _same_ brilliant argument that Apple did
when Apple turned a dead woman into a brilliant branding coup!

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 12:33:24 PM1/31/19
to
On 2019-01-30 8:47 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 20:36:04 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Do you have a single report of an Apple power adapter killing anyone?
>> Even injuring anyone?
>
> H...

You're not paying attention.

Answer like an adult by:

Not cutting my replies without addressing what I said.

Not repeating assertions you've already made.

sms

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 4:49:17 PM1/31/19
to

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 4:58:25 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:33:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> By the way, you DO realize you could have linked to what Apple actually
> DID say, right?
> <https://www.apple.com/support/usbadapter-takeback/>

Apple doesn't really care about safety - it was only a marketing gimmick
o And marketing gimmicks are time limited

Notice all the marketing-gimmickry going on in this quote from:
<https://www.apple.com/support/usbadapter-takeback/>

GIMMICK:
"We will ensure that these adapters are disposed of in an
environmentally friendly way"
FACT:
If they really cared about the environment, they wouldn't make
the replacement time limited - and - it wouldn't be tied to the timing
of the dead lady - which it was.

GIMMICK:
"For a limited time, you can purchase one Apple USB power
adapter at a special price"
FACT:
If they really gave a shit about safety, it wouldn't be time limited.
And, they wouldn't charge you, essentially, *full price* for the
replacement.

GIMMICK:
"$10 USD or approximate equivalent in local currency.
To qualify, you must turn in at least one USB power adapter"
FACT:
You _pay_ $10 plus you give them about $10 in value, for what?
For a $20 charger?
What fool doesn't do the math to realize you get _nothing_ but gimmicks.

GIMMICK:
"and bring your iPhone, iPad, or iPod to an Apple Retail Store
or participating Apple Authorized Service Provider for serial
number validation. The special pricing on Apple USB power
adapters is limited to one adapter for each iPhone, iPad,
and iPod you own and is valid until October 18, 2013."
FACT:
WTF?
This is 100% gimmick. Why would it matter from a *safety*
standpoint how many chargers you have per Apple device?

GIMMICK:
"Due to the complexity of testing required to detect an unsafe
or counterfeit adapter, Apple Retail and Apple Authorized Service
Providers cannot advise you on the authenticity or safety of your
adapter."
FACT:
Duh. Of course you won't/can't test for safety.
The whole deal has _nothing_ whatsoever to do with safety.
It's 100% marketing gimmickry and 0% safety.

GIMMICK:
"We are offering this special takeback program for any USB
power adapter made for use with iPhone, iPad, and iPod for
which you have concerns."
FACT:
If it looks, smells, or sounds like an "Apple" look-alike, we
want you, the idiot customer, to _believe_ that _only_ an
"authorized" charger is "safe" for you, and for your device.

GIMMICK:
o Only an idiot owning the brain of a child can't instantly comprehend
that this is merely a time-limited marketing gimmick to get people
to _feel_ safer (but not actually _be_ safer).
FACT:
o There is no indication that any of my real-world in my hand devices
as shown below are in any way shape or form any less safe than
any device that happens to have the Apple logo on it from Apple.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>


NOTE: I'm _sure_ there are defective devices, whether Apple or non Apple,
since defective devices exist (heck, _every_ iPhone from the past few years
is defective, for example). But what I have in my very hands are not cherry
picked marketing gimmicks; they are _real world_ devices - and there is
zero indication that they are any less (or more) safe than the
Apple-branded devices in my hands.

They're just not.
Only a fool believes what Apple Marketing Propaganda wants them to believe.

HINT: Apple chargers aren't any safer - they're simply 'about the same'.
NOTE: My non-Apple chargers are, in general, far more functional though.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:04:30 PM1/31/19
to
On 2019-01-31 1:58 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:33:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> By the way, you DO realize you could have linked to what Apple actually
>> DID say, right?
>> <https://www.apple.com/support/usbadapter-takeback/>
> Apple doesn't...

"Arlen":

When you are prepared to have a civil, adult conversation about this,
please let me know.

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:10:12 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:49:16 -0800, sms wrote:

>> *What do _you_ think was the most brilliant marketing move by Apple?*
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4IrnH3tkHE>

Hi sms,

As you're an adult, you write with reason, understanding, & logic.

I have to admit, _that_ ad (& the IBM "big brother" ad) were both
sheer marketing propaganda genius from Apple Marketing!

o Superbowl Commercial ("1984")
o <https://youtu.be/PsjMmAqmblQ?t=62>

"It's gotta be dramatic"
"It's gotta be different"
"The board of directors thought it was stupid & irresponsible"
"So you open on this place that represents the future with people
marching to a central hall"
"Our idea was that big brother represented the control of technology
by the few"
"Running down one of the corridors was a girl"
"She stopped and swung once or twice & heaved the hammer"
"A gigantic explosion"
"It was designed to have a media life after the superbowl"
"But it didn't show the product as the product wasn't even working yet"

nospam

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:12:30 PM1/31/19
to
In article <q2vr20$9c$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> HINT: Apple chargers aren't any safer - they're simply 'about the same'.

they're definitely safer. see the numerous teardowns.

> NOTE: My non-Apple chargers are, in general, far more functional though.

where 'more functional' means the output isn't necessarily 5v, includes
a lot of noise, and the charger carries a significant risk that the
input could short to the output at any time, frying the device and/or
you (if only).

that is a function not present on the apple chargers, and for good
reason. it's *dangerous*.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:12:41 PM1/31/19
to
That's a lot of quoted statements...

...but what are the sources?

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:13:44 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:04:29 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> When you are prepared to have a civil, adult conversation about this,
> please let me know.

I had to laugh that _this_ was _your_ only possible response ....
o To you, Alan Baker, facts aren't civil.

*You don't even know how to _respond_ to facts, Alan Baker.*

I don't even have to prove that fact.
o You just proved it for me.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:14:22 PM1/31/19
to
I see you don't want to accept my very reasonable offer.

Too bad, really.

sms

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:15:16 PM1/31/19
to
On 1/30/2019 7:00 PM, arlen holder wrote:
Decontenting products and then selling dongles to add back the
functionality that was removed was the most brilliant marketing move.
Very high margins on dongles plus people tend to lose them then buy
replacements, or they buy one set for home and one set for work.

"Dongles have been Apple’s top-selling products for the last two years
at Best Buy"

"Apple makes 23 different dongles — and it would cost you $857 to buy
them all"

On two recent occasions I've been in meetings where a Macbook owner just
didn't have the proper dongle, or combination of dongles, to use a
projector or large screen TV. Most recently it was HDMI and they didn't
have the Mini-Dispay-Port/Thunderbolt to HDMI dongle
<https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HHLN2ZM/B/belkin-4k-mini-displayport-to-hdmi-adapter>,
they had the Mini-Display-Port to S-VGA dongle
<https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MB572Z/B/mini-displayport-to-vga-adapter>.
Before that is was they didn't have the Mini-Display-Port to S-VGA
dongle
<https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MB572Z/B/mini-displayport-to-vga-adapter>.
A lot of businesses have ceiling mounted high-end projectors that have
been there for a while and that are only VGA and DVI, and have only the
VGA cable through the walls and ceiling.

In one case the person had a USB-C to Mini-Display-Port dongle, and an
Apple Mini-Display-Port to VGA dongle. These did not work connected
together. She also had an Apple USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter and
an HDMI to VGA adapter, and those did not work connected together. And
she worked for Apple. Embarrassing.

In one conference room we have all the dongles left there with little
security cables attached so no one walks off with them.
Mini-Display-Port, VGA, HDMI, and Lightning. We're pretty prepared,
except for the occasional Mini-HDMI or Micro-HDMI connector on some
Windows laptops.

In both cases someone else had a computer with the proper port, in one
case a Macbook with an HDMI port, in one case a Thinkpad with a VGA
port, and the presentation was transferred via a USB stick.

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:19:02 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:12:40 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> That's a lot of quoted statements...
>
> ...but what are the sources?

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.
o How you _constantly_ prove to be so stupid, is beyond comprehension!

*For heaven's sake, Alan Baker - stop proving you're an utter moron!*

It's embarrassing that human beings can be _that_ incredibly stupid!
o Your fellow Apple Apologists should even be embarrassed
(Well, except for Joerg Lorenz ... he wouldn't know the difference).

Nobody is as stupid as what you just wrote proved you are, Alan Baker.
o Nobody

HINT: I gave the _exact_ time of the quoted content for Christs' sake!

What's shocking is that you (and the other Apologists)
o Flatly deny that which is fact
o WITHOUT ever even clicking on the link provided

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.
o *It's embarrassing to even have to _explain_ this to you.*

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:25:03 PM1/31/19
to
On 2019-01-31 2:19 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:12:40 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> That's a lot of quoted statements...
>>
>> ...but what are the sources?
>
> Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.

I gave you a chance for civil discourse...

...and you completely failed.

nospam

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:28:37 PM1/31/19
to
In article <q2vs1j$u6l$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Decontenting products and then selling dongles to add back the
> functionality that was removed was the most brilliant marketing move.

apple doesn't do that.

what they do is adopt new standards because the old ones have been
replaced.

> Very high margins on dongles plus people tend to lose them then buy
> replacements, or they buy one set for home and one set for work.

people losing them is not relevant.

> "Dongles have been Appleąs top-selling products for the last two years
> at Best Buy"

a meaningless stat

> "Apple makes 23 different dongles ‹ and it would cost you $857 to buy
> them all"

there's no need to buy all of them.

in fact, there's no need to buy any of them.



> A lot of businesses have ceiling mounted high-end projectors that have
> been there for a while and that are only VGA and DVI, and have only the
> VGA cable through the walls and ceiling.

anyone still using vga has bigger problems.

and it's not just apple. hp has laptop with *only* usb-c. the google
pixelbook is only usb-c. they too would need dongles to connect to a
projector or whatever.

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:46:30 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:25:02 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> I gave you a chance for civil discourse...

Hi Alan Baker,

Please allow me to give you some heartfelt advice.

It's literally embarrassing to attempt a conversation with you.
o I'm serious.

That you _think_ you're an adult, is part of the embarrassment.
o I have to explain the _simplest_ of things, to you, Alan Baker.

Like this...

Dear Alan Baker,
By now, you should realize I don't make shit up.

So, if I provide a link, particularly one that starts at a specific time
point, and then I provide quotes under that link, that correspond to what
is said at that specific time point ....

Um ... Alan ... knock knock ...

Alan.... don't you _think_ it would be stupid to question the quotes
_without_ even clicking on the link?

I mean, it's _embarrassing_ that I have to explain this to you Alan.
o You're welcome to question my facts
o But at least click on the freaking link _before_ you question them!

*It's _embarrassing_ for me that I have to explain this, to you.*

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 5:46:31 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:12:30 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> HINT: Apple chargers aren't any safer - they're simply 'about the same'.
>
> they're definitely safer. see the numerous teardowns.

Hi nospam,

You're wrong that "they're definitely safer", where, if you actually
believe that, tell me how my real world real life in my hands LG & VOLT
chargers are less safe to me from electrocution than are the Apple branded
chargers.

NOTE: The _only_ way you can make _any_ argument, is to fall back exactly
upon the cherry picked Apple Marketing Propaganda.

That's the sheer beauty of the Apple branding message!
o *Apple turned a dead woman into a gold mine of BRAND propaganda!*

> where 'more functional' means the output isn't necessarily 5v, includes
> a lot of noise, and the charger carries a significant risk that the
> input could short to the output at any time, frying the device and/or
> you (if only).

Your post was _perfect_ because the _only_ way you _can_ argue
against my real-world real-life in-my-hands charger example,
is to use _exactly_ the logic of that Apple Marketing Propaganda.

It's sheer brilliance, nospam.

The _only_ way you can respond to my facts, is to use the _exact_ Apple
Marketing Propaganda message.

There is no other message you _can_ use!
o *That's the brilliance of turning a dead woman into a marketing coup!*

> that is a function not present on the apple chargers, and for good
> reason. it's *dangerous*.

The saddest thing, nospam, is that you actually _believe_ what you write.

And yet, you can't possibly deviate from Apple MARKETING propaganda.

*It's what makes Apple Marketing Propaganda so fantastically BRILLIANT!*

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 6:11:06 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:15:11 -0800, sms wrote:

> Decontenting products and then selling dongles to add back the
> functionality that was removed was the most brilliant marketing move.

Hi sms,

This is interesting, where you know far more about this than I do,
so I will defer to your judgment, and to the examples you provided.

I only know the "obvious" when it comes to this marketing tactic.

For example, Apple's "courageous" move to direct headphone functionality to
their product was driven mostly by those goals (where we've had _plenty_ of
discussions on that which don't need to be repeated here).

Apple used the word "courage" but they could just as well have described it
as a "crude ploy" that is, in essence, a tax on the stupidity of their user
base.

I would call removing headphone jack functionality as crude; not brilliant,
for example - but you bring up _other_ examples, which may be brilliant.

Clearly the latest iOS devices are less functional than "many" Android
devices when you look at common things such as headphone jacks, battery
removal, expansion slots, etc. (at least to anyone with a brain).

But I also admit that I don't know much about the specific examples you
gave with respect to dongles, so I repeat, I defer to your judgment.

> Very high margins on dongles plus people tend to lose them then buy
> replacements, or they buy one set for home and one set for work.

Hi sms,

I don't know much about these dongles...
o Is the "courageous" marketing just "crude" (i.e., a tax on stupidity)?
o Or is the marketing truly brilliant? (where even smart people fall for it)?

> "Dongles have been AppleĄĶs top-selling products for the last two years
> at Best Buy"

Well, you have a point in that sheer profit adds to the "brilliance", in
that the payback is fantastic ... to Apple.

Everyone loses ... and Apple wins.
o In a way, that's brilliance, I guess.

But it's still a tax on the stupid, is it not?

I mean, it prays on the stupid - which means it doesn't need to be
brilliant - it just has to gain Apple profits at the expense of the
consumer.

> "Apple makes 23 different dongles ĄX and it would cost you $857 to buy
> them all"

Wow. But still, brilliance?
o On the point of profits, I agree it's a boon to Apple.

But don't all adults (with a brain) see right through it?

> In one conference room we have all the dongles left there with little
> security cables attached so no one walks off with them.

Actually, _that_ is kind of brilliant, in that Apple made a "new
requirement" for the company to purchase "more stuff" from Apple that
shouldn't have been needed in the first place.

So, maybe ... maybe it is brilliant?

Crude. But brilliant.
Interesting...

arlen holder

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 6:19:13 PM1/31/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:28:37 -0500, nospam wrote:

> what they do is adopt new standards because the old ones have been
> replaced.

What I _love_ about nospam's responses, is that they are _exactly_
the marketing propaganda that Apple themselves promulgate.

In nospam's mind (and in Apple Marketing propaganda)
o All the "non authorized" chargers in my real world hands - are unsafe.

Why?
o Because Apple Marketing Propaganda said so - that's why.

Your Name

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 8:28:22 PM1/31/19
to
On 1/30/2019 7:00 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?

Easy - completely ignoring the brainless numbnuts in Wall Street as
well as the whinny anti-Apple morons like you.


Your Name

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 8:28:30 PM1/31/19
to
Along similar lines, I have a copy of an old Apple marketing manual
from the early 1990s called:
35 Macintosh Advantages
35 reasons why Macintosh computers are better
than IBM-compatible PCs running Windows

I know there were some different versions produced and updated over the
years, but I don't know when (or even if) they stopped producing them.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 8:47:51 PM1/31/19
to
On 2019-01-31 2:46 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:25:02 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I gave you a chance for civil discourse...
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Please allow me to give you some heartfelt advice.
>
> It's literally embarrassing to attempt a conversation with you.
> o I'm serious.

I'm beginning to believe you're serious...

...which is more than a little sad...

...for you.

sms

unread,
Feb 3, 2019, 1:02:32 PM2/3/19
to
On 1/31/2019 3:11 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> Actually, _that_ is kind of brilliant, in that Apple made a "new
> requirement" for the company to purchase "more stuff" from Apple that
> shouldn't have been needed in the first place.

I think that if a port or other feature is used only rarely, and adds
weight and cost to a product, that at some point it's okay to remove it.

Optical drives are not needed very often anymore, and removing them
saves weight and cost, and for the times you need it an external drive
is sufficient and about $25.

What's needed and missing for using laptops in office settings is wired
Ethernet, but that dongle is very cheap and small.

The issue is you're buying all these bits and pieces at retail price
instead of the laptop manufacturer including them and paying 1/10 to 1/5
the cost for each item. It creates a market for accessories which have
very high mark-ups. Then you have to carry around all this stuff.

IMVAIO, there's no reason to not have an HDMI port on a laptop. There's
plenty of room for one and hooking a laptop to a TV or projector is done
so often.

The headphone jack removal was a mistake in multiple ways.

nospam

unread,
Feb 3, 2019, 1:20:14 PM2/3/19
to
In article <q37abn$ump$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I think that if a port or other feature is used only rarely, and adds
> weight and cost to a product, that at some point it's okay to remove it.

yep, but then you go on and contradict yourself.

> Optical drives are not needed very often anymore, and removing them
> saves weight and cost, and for the times you need it an external drive
> is sufficient and about $25.

optical drives are long obsolete, plus they can be had for less too.

> What's needed and missing for using laptops in office settings is wired
> Ethernet, but that dongle is very cheap and small.

nope. the vast majority of users use wifi, which is as fast as wired
ethernet (in some cases faster) and *far* more convenient. it's *very*
rare that wired ethernet is *required*, and for those situations, leave
the adapter connected to the ethernet cable. nothing to carry.

> The issue is you're buying all these bits and pieces at retail price
> instead of the laptop manufacturer including them and paying 1/10 to 1/5
> the cost for each item. It creates a market for accessories which have
> very high mark-ups. Then you have to carry around all this stuff.

there is no need to carry anything extra.

what's a bad idea is forcing everyone to pay for something they don't
need or use.

> IMVAIO, there's no reason to not have an HDMI port on a laptop. There's
> plenty of room for one and hooking a laptop to a TV or projector is done
> so often.

it's not done very often at all. the vast majority of people rarely, if
ever, use hdmi out, which is why it's not there anymore.

> The headphone jack removal was a mistake in multiple ways.

nope, which is why most android makers no longer have it, and in fact,
removed it *before* apple did.

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 7, 2019, 12:00:49 AM2/7/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:00:46 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> *What do _you_ think was the most brilliant marketing move by Apple?*

Yet another _brilliant_ move by Apple marketing may be "FaceID".
o What can make you _feel_ safer, than your own face!

Do you agree FaceID is a fantastically brilliantly clever marketing gimmick?

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 7, 2019, 12:26:46 AM2/7/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:47:50 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> ...which is more than a little sad...

Keeping on topic, a potentially brilliant marketing ploy is in the making!
o Apple sells refurb iPhone X models starting at $769
<https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/04/apple-refurbished-iphone-x/>

o Apple restarts iPhone X production following weak iPhone XS and XS Max sales
https://mashable.com/article/apple-iphone-x-production-weak-sales-iphone-xs/#LV.FQuK33aq5

Given those two new developments...
o *Expect Apple MARKETING PROPAGANDA to ramp up like crazy!*

Note: Since the Apple Apologists can only _parrot_ Apple Marketing
Propaganda, it will be interesting to see how they justify these moves.

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 7, 2019, 2:12:53 AM2/7/19
to
On 2019-02-06 9:26 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 17:47:50 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> ...which is more than a little sad...
>
> Keeping on topic, a potentially brilliant marketing ploy is in the making!
> o Apple sells refurb iPhone X models starting at $769
> <https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/04/apple-refurbished-iphone-x/>

Why would they need to sell refurbs is they

>
> o Apple restarts iPhone X production following weak iPhone XS and XS Max sales
> https://mashable.com/article/apple-iphone-x-production-weak-sales-iphone-xs/#LV.FQuK33aq5

If they were restarting production in November of last year...

..where are these new iPhone X units?

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 8, 2019, 11:22:09 AM2/8/19
to
More _brilliant_ marketing today, from Apple!
*o Apple may not care about product - but they sure do care about IMAGE!*

o Apple will pay the teenager who discovered the Group FaceTime bug
<https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/08/apple-pay-teen-group-facetime-bug/>

"14-year-old Grant Thompson will also receive
a gift toward his education"

Now thats! *Marketing!*

"Grant Thompson, a 14-year-old high school student ... discovered the
flaw around two weeks ago while setting up a group chat with friends"

Notice that Apple _clearly_ doesn't sufficiently test the software if a
mere child runs into bugs simply by doing _exactly_ what the product does!

Bearing in mind product doesn't matter - but IMAGE matters greatly...
o Notice Apple didn't give a shit until the shit hit the fan.

"His mother Michele Thompson said she repeatedly tried to contact
Apple about the issue through email and social media to no avail.
The company got in touch with her a week ago, once news of the
bug had gone viral online"

Also notice that, so far, Apple has flatly _refused_ to state how long this bug
has been in existence (yes, they were asked) and even why they took
far longer than expected to fix the bug (where the logic is clear to anyone
with an brain capable of putting two and two together)...

"Apple issued a fix for the FaceTime bug just hours ago in its
iOS 12.1.4 security update. The release notes for the patch credit
Thompson alongside another individual identified as Daven Morris..."

In summary, Apple doesn't test sufficiently, which is a well known and
easily proven fact (see references below as just a few ad hoc examples).

But what Apple does do, after the shit hits the fan, is MARKET IMAGE!
"Details of the payment have not been released, though Apple
does offer up to $200,000 in cash bounties as part of its bug bounty
program. "

This facetime bug PERFECTLY exemplifies two things:
FACTS: Apple does not sufficiently test software (that's abundantly clear)
LOGIC: Yet, Apple has some of the best MARKETING on the planet!

HINT: Do you know _why_ Apple doesn't bother to sufficiently test s/w?
DOUBLEHINT: I think I do ( I've said why & backed what I say with facts many times).

REFERENCES:
o Lockscreen exploit easilfy found only hours after iOS 12.1 released
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

o Apple Macs Have Yet Another Password-Bypassing Bug
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/4rM5ZPCgThI/X8HEf0BvCAAJ>

o A massive security hole has been found in iOS 11
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xGV0X_Qfqc4/VqqWWwMXBAAJ>

o icloud privacy breach
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eZjiSd1HneE>

o MacWorld: Apple needs to stop promising new products and start delivering them
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WYjTtnTs-XQ/YyhGkrNXAAAJ>

o Yet again, Apple forgot to test iOS 11.2.6 in the real world
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/AlkmHCTSUXg/K5GdwrzdCQAJ>

o Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently (this time not only from Facebook but also from Expedia, Hollister and Hotels.com)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8HfdPOQVNVk>

o Yet another shoddy example of Apple rushing to fix a critical issue
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/mqTrBBlvGCU/jrJWtF8DBAAJ>

o Apple openly admits they didn't test iOS in the real world!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K8uOvBjJ2rY/2htXivAfAwAJ>

o Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/technology/facetime-glitch-apple.html>

o iOS 12.1 Beta Includes Fix for iOS 12 iPhone and iPad Charging Issue
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/pdlKvBUmrj0/8jnSieURAwAJ>

o Is Apple seriously suggesting that millions of unsuspecting customers - now become - beta testers - just so that their phones will work!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/xrovVjnWUo4/mWmtp7EYAwAJ>

o How to work around the new Apple iOS7 infinite loop of mistrust bug on Linux?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/_e0czhOYSHo/WuyowzN73IsJ>

o Every time iOS updates, Apple causes new problems in the REAL world...
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Z6xD4HaiyjE/Jr5yYrBUCAAJ>

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 9, 2019, 1:34:04 AM2/9/19
to
More BRILLIANT Apple Marketing is in how they're "lowering" the price
of the "flagship" iPhones, without actually lowering the price of the flagship iPhones!

This response, just now to sms, explains the LOGIC of that BRILLIANCE!

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 09:08:12 -0800, sms wrote:

> The manufacturing cost point of view is irrelevant. They need a phone
> with a lower retail price but that has an OLED screen. They obviously
> don't want to cut the price of their flagship Xs Max.

Hi sms,

You're not an Apologist, so this post includes adult arguments, which means
we have to use a modicum of adult _logic_ given the sparsity of known facts
on how much "in part" the OLED decision is due to.

As for your statement above, I think you have to realize, as a politician
should, that not everything that is stated is 100% the _only_ reason for
the action taken.

FACT + LOGIC:
o "in part"

Apple clearly stated that, "in part", the decision to make the iPhone X is
the OLED screen commitment to the likes of Samsung (where JF Mezei would
rather they created more of the iPhone XS).

FACT:
o Clearly the iPhone XS that JF Mezei wants, "isn't selling" all that great.
LOGIC:
o So it makes zero sense for Apple to produce _more_ of the iPhone XS.
(In fact, Apple already said they're _cutting_ production, didn't they?)

There are always two things you get from me:
o FACT + LOGIC.

While I wouldn't disagree with what JF Mezei would "want", the fact is that
Apple apparently stated that the decision to make the OLED screen iPhone X
was due only "in part" to the Samsung commitment.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

What part is "in part"?
o Who knows?

Not me. Or you. Or anyone, for that matter.
o It could be 1% "in part", or 10% "in part", or 25% in part, right?

But "in part" means "something" less than 100% (generally a _lot_ less).
o So what is the other part?

FACT + LOGIC:

FACT:
o Apple promoted the new phones as a HIGH PRICED QUALITY PHONE, right?
o Tim Cook literally said he's going to have to find a way to lower the price, right?
Tim Cook even showed clever sneaky ways to make the price LOOK lower, right?

Just as in politics...

FACTS are always clear, where logic is never as clear as the facts,
simply because very CLEVER MARKETING PROPAGANDA is involved.

LOGIC:
I think the _other part_ is where adult logical thought process kicks in:
o Apple needs a way to lower the price without lowering the IMAGE!

What better way to lower the price than to remanufacture the previous
flagship phone at the price that they _should_ have set the current
flagship phones at?

To me, it's yet another example of sheer Apple Marketing Brilliance!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>
--
People say I hate Apple but not only do I own and buy plenty of Apple
products, but I also always appreciate the brilliance of Apple Marketing!
(I'm just not a "typical" apple user - who thinks quite diferently than I).

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 9, 2019, 12:57:33 PM2/9/19
to
While clever marketing tricks always require an open mind that comprehends
o Facts
o Logic

The news today hinted this clever trick is what may have made Ahrendts lose
her job, where it's clear Apple is using a "fire drill" of Marketing TRICKS
o Tim Cook literally telegraphed that they won't lower the price for real
o But they'll find a way to cleverly trick the consumer into purchases

There's nothing wrong with marketing tricks - but this one may have
stepped over the line (certainly they stepped over the line of trust).

See details in this new report:
o Apple Personnel Push iPhone Upgrades to Customers Out-of-Warranty
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Sdfiy0Gi5ZM>

sms

unread,
Feb 9, 2019, 1:37:43 PM2/9/19
to
On 2/8/2019 10:34 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> Apple clearly stated that, "in part", the decision to make the iPhone X is
> the OLED screen commitment to the likes of Samsung (where JF Mezei would
> rather they created more of the iPhone XS).

Correct. They have to take those screens so they have to have a product
to put them in that they can sell at an attractive price to those
customers unwilling to spend the extra money for the Xs without
affecting sales of the Xs too much.

The question is whether the XIs will have the same screen because if so
they could have just met their commitment to Samsung and stockpiled the
screens until they needed them. But if the rumors about Touch ID making
a comeback on the XI, and being under the screen, then the current
screens may not be usable on the next generation.

nospam

unread,
Feb 9, 2019, 4:31:38 PM2/9/19
to
In article <q3n6ll$sia$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > Apple clearly stated that, "in part", the decision to make the iPhone X is
> > the OLED screen commitment to the likes of Samsung (where JF Mezei would
> > rather they created more of the iPhone XS).
>
> Correct. They have to take those screens so they have to have a product
> to put them in that they can sell at an attractive price to those
> customers unwilling to spend the extra money for the Xs without
> affecting sales of the Xs too much.

no

> The question is whether the XIs will have the same screen because if so
> they could have just met their commitment to Samsung and stockpiled the
> screens until they needed them. But if the rumors about Touch ID making
> a comeback on the XI, and being under the screen, then the current
> screens may not be usable on the next generation.

there are no such rumours. all there is is a patent and some trolling.

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 10, 2019, 4:22:01 PM2/10/19
to
Another *brilliant* marketing move is Apple's stance on "privacy".
o Apple clearly doesn't protect the users' privacy (that's a fact); yet
o Apple literally screams out that they are the company to protect privacy!

o FACT + LOGIC <===> the open-minded comprehend both

FACT:
o It's abundantly clear that apps have been recording the users every
button press within the app unbeknownst to Apple.

LOGIC:
o Why didn't Apple know of this before approving the apps?

"Apple confirmed to the publication that its App Store Review
Guidelines prohibit this kind of activity without first gaining
proper consent from a user."

<https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18216143/apple-iphone-ios-session-replay-screen-recording-crackdown>

FACT:
o Glassbox was used to monitor, record, and save user actions.

LOGIC:
o Why wasn't Apple able to confirm what TechCrunch clearly confirmed?

"The practice, known as session replaying, involves using a
third-party company, in this case analytics firm Glassbox,
to embed code in a mobile app that records user activity"

FACT:
o This is a security & privacy vulnerability

LOGIC:
o Why is Apple (yet again) clueless about protecting users' privacy?

"In one case, Air Canada┬ mobile app was even failing to mask
sensitive user data, and mobile expert App Analyst was able to
intercept that data using a pretty standard man-in-the-middle attack"

The honest open-minded question is very simple.

FACTS + LOGIC

FACTS:
o The fact is that Apple was wholly unaware of this spyware they approved.
o And yet, Apple screams on building walls they take privacy seriously.

LOGIC:
o Why does this huge privacy hole even exist?
o (Why doesn't Apple simply _test_ for such spyware before approval?)

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 10, 2019, 5:55:11 PM2/10/19
to
On 2019-02-10 1:22 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> Another *brilliant*...

...post where the only one impressed by you...

...is you!


arlen holder

unread,
Feb 11, 2019, 11:45:53 AM2/11/19
to
Yet another brilliant marketing move coming up from Apple...

o New iPhones to stick with Lightning over USB-C
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/11/18220063/iphone-2019-lightning-usb-c-5w-usb-a-power-adapter>

"You▍l still get the same [old] 5W USB-A charger in the box"

"Once again you▍l need to buy a _separate_ USB-C to Lightning
cable and a power brick that supports USB-C Power Delivery
if you want to be able to fast-charge your $1,000 iPhone"

"Apple has offered fast-charging in its phones since 2017s
iPhone 8, but has never included the hardware needed for
it in the box, even as its devices have crept beyond the $1,000 mark."

"it┬ a practice that┬ increasingly outdated"

I posit it is yet another brilliant marketing move from Apple:
o Get them to pay $1,500 for the phone, and then
o Get them to buy a cable to fast charge that $,1500 iPhone
o Get them to also buy a fast charger to fast charge that $1,500 iPhone

It's Brilliant Apple Marketing 101

sms

unread,
Feb 12, 2019, 3:42:02 AM2/12/19
to
On 2/11/2019 8:45 AM, arlen holder wrote:
> Yet another brilliant marketing move coming up from Apple...
>
> o New iPhones to stick with Lightning over USB-C
> <https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/11/18220063/iphone-2019-lightning-usb-c-5w-usb-a-power-adapter>
>
> "You¢ll still get the same [old] 5W USB-A charger in the box"

<snip>

They really want to migrate customers to wireless charging. The sooner
they can get critical mass to move to wireless charging the sooner they
can drop the charging port completely.

nospam

unread,
Feb 12, 2019, 4:26:27 AM2/12/19
to
In article <q3u0sn$o87$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> They really want to migrate customers to wireless charging. The sooner
> they can get critical mass to move to wireless charging the sooner they
> can drop the charging port completely.

more nonsense from the resident troll.

that's extremely unlikely to happen for all sorts of reasons.

they might switch to usb-c, but that's about it.

sms

unread,
Feb 12, 2019, 11:07:20 AM2/12/19
to
On 2/11/2019 8:45 AM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> "Apple has offered fast-charging in its phones since 2017s
> iPhone 8, but has never included the hardware needed for
> it in the box, even as its devices have crept beyond the $1,000 mark."
>
> "it¢s a practice that¢s increasingly outdated"

There is a legitimate reason for a fast charger not being included: fast
charging generates more heat. There is already advice to remove any case
from the device if it gets too hot while charging
<https://www.apple.com/batteries/maximizing-performance/>. Also, the
iPhone's temperature range is a rather narrow +32°F to +95°F with the
"ideal comfort zone" specified as 62°F to 72°F. By contrast, Samsung
specifies "normal operating conditions" at +32°F to +95°F but the
operating range is -4°F to +122°F (you just will experience issues like
shorter operating time per charge or CPU throttling). See
<https://www.pcworld.com/article/249134/sub_zero_weather_can_your_smartphone_stand_the_cold_.html>.

sms

unread,
Feb 12, 2019, 12:57:37 PM2/12/19
to
On 2/11/2019 8:45 AM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> "Apple has offered fast-charging in its phones since 2017s
> iPhone 8, but has never included the hardware needed for
> it in the box

<snip>

All the phones I have purchased that supported fast charging (QC2.0 or
QC3.0) shipped with a fast charger, including the version of low-cost LG
Stylo 3 that supported fast-charging and the Moto X4. The cost of extra
QC chargers is pretty low. I keep one in each car, and my wife and I
also have additional ones at work. However the iPad Pro did not come
with a fast charger, I had to buy that separately and it was not cheap.

<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01D9QZV28/> is the best charger I've found
for multiple devices, though it went up in price since I bought it. I
can charge my iPad Pro at higher rate using the PD port, along with my
iPhone at normal rate and my Android phone at high rate.

For wireless charging, I bought <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MNJP97N>
but the PD port is not a high-rate port.

It's a good marketing strategy to not include accessories because the
margins are very high on things like chargers, cables, and dongles, and
it doesn't add cost to the base product for everyone that has no
interest in any of the accessories.

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 3:28:06 PM2/15/19
to
Did you see the recent numbers for the average selling price?
o AAPL Earnings Call Transcript: iPhone ASP $840, US installed base 190 Million, world installed base 900 million, 200 million iPhones sold in 2018
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/5tzSJvDdLjE>

Now _that's_ Marketing!

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 3:39:12 PM2/15/19
to
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 04:26:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

> more nonsense from the resident troll.

Hi nospam,

FACT + LOGIC.
Q: *Is your belief system really that easy to prove to be imaginary?*

FACT + LOGIC.

While you're great at flatly refuting facts & logic you don't like,
what facts & logic do you use to back up your assertion of "nonsense"?

Or, is your flat refutation backed up by only your imaginary beliefs?

FACT + LOGIC:

This is the reliable quote that sms was responding to, is it not?
"Once again you'll need to buy a _separate_ USB-C to Lightning
cable and a power brick that supports USB-C Power Delivery
if you want to be able to fast-charge your $1,000 iPhone"

HINT: That's a real quote, nospam; it's not an imaginary quote.

FACT + LOGIC:
Let me ask an Adult question of you nospam... if I may...

FACT + LOGIC:
Since you refute sms' logic out of hand, what non-imaginary LOGIC do you
provide for the FACT that the statement above appears to be perfectly true?

What's that?
You have none?

Really?
You have absolutely zero facts, nospam?
You flatly refute what sms said, and yet, you are backed up by nothing?

Really?
Q: *Is your belief system actually that easy to prove to be imaginary?*

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 3:52:41 PM2/15/19
to
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 08:07:12 -0800, sms wrote:

> There is a legitimate reason for a fast charger not being included: fast
> charging generates more heat.

Hi sms,

All I ask of you, sms, and the other adults on this ng, are two things:
o FACTS + LOGIC

There is a very good reason they advertise that a powerful engine is
included in a high priced sports car. Yet, powerful engines, in and of
themselves, generally generate more heat, but then it's a high priced car,
right?

If the manufacturer wants to ADVERTISE performance
o Then the performance can't be merely imaginary

So what does a manufacturer do who advertises a fast charging engine?
o What the manufacturer does is design in a beefier cooling system.

Perhaps they add a larger radiator with more surface area and a viscous fan
that tailors its speed depending on the temperature, and a MAF thermostat
which blocks the flow efficiently at startup and then opens up as needed,
and perhaps a metal-vaned greater-volume water pump, and maybe even
blueprinting the more important passageways which would be designed to have
smooth arcs so as to implement laminar flow, etc.

If you're going to ADVERTISE high performance - then it has to exist.
o Simply advertising performance that you don't get - is IMAGE marketing.

You're not saying Apple only markets IMAGE, are you?

The analogy above is to underscore that Apple devices can either fast
charge under typical conditions, or they can't.

Just like sports cars can either handle the heat of high compression
engines, or they can't.

If the REASON to NOT include the fast charger is that they really can't
fast charge, then, um, er ... that's kind of like what Apple did with the
throttling.

In the case of throttling, Apple was marketing only IMAGE (not actual
performance, which clearly the throttled phones are unable to handle).

*It's selling purely an imaginary IMAGE sans any product behind it.*

FACT & LOGIC is all I ask of you here.
o The article was speaking valid fact & adult logic.

Either Apple has fast charging - or it doesn't.
o If it has fast charging, then why not include a fast charger?

If Apple phones can't easily fast charge under "normal" conditions, then
it's yet more proof that all Apple ever does do, is sell IMAGE (but not
product).

All I ask of you, sms, and the other adults are two things:
o FACTS + LOGIC

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 4:05:48 PM2/15/19
to
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:57:33 -0800, sms wrote:

> All the phones I have purchased that supported fast charging (QC2.0 or
> QC3.0) shipped with a fast charger, including the version of low-cost LG
> Stylo 3 that supported fast-charging and the Moto X4.

Hi SMS,
I just pulled my (unused) charger ouf of the box and took this picture:
<>

That's the charger that came with my $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus.
It still has the original "wrapper" on it, but I think the small print says
o LG Travel Adapter Model MCS-H05WR
o 9 Volts DC, 1.8Amps
o 5 Volts DC, 1.8 Amps

Is that a "fast charger" that came with my $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus?

> The cost of extra
> QC chargers is pretty low. I keep one in each car, and my wife and I
> also have additional ones at work. However the iPad Pro did not come
> with a fast charger, I had to buy that separately and it was not cheap.

If my $130 phone (which comes with LOTS of other things that aren't on
Apple phones, such as the stylus, removable battery, sd card slot, fm
radio, and, of course, that "courageous" headphone jack), then why can't a
$1000 Apple iPhone come with a fast charger?

> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01D9QZV28/> is the best charger I've found
> for multiple devices, though it went up in price since I bought it. I
> can charge my iPad Pro at higher rate using the PD port, along with my
> iPhone at normal rate and my Android phone at high rate.

Interestingly, I charge my $300 128GB Costco WiFi-only iPad 2017 using any
old charger, which, currently, is a 2.4 Amp 5VDC multi-port wall charger
(and any old lightning cable from Frys that I happen to have lying around).

What would a fast charger get me in terms of greater than those 2.4 amps?
o Would I need a special cable?

> It's a good marketing strategy to not include accessories because the
> margins are very high on things like chargers, cables, and dongles, and
> it doesn't add cost to the base product for everyone that has no
> interest in any of the accessories.

The article was pretty clearly lamenting that Apple charges a high price
but doesn't give you what the high price _should_ buy you.

It this yet another obvious proof that Apple sells only IMAGE but not the
actual advertised product?

NOTE: Apple did that with throttling, right? They sold an IMAGE of
performance, but nobody could get that performance after 'about a year',
and, in fact, they got less than half that performance, for the rest of the
life of the phone (unless they bought more batteries from Apple).

Bearing in mind Apple's MARKETING claims for this $1000 phone that the
article was talking about, is this fast-charger issue yet another case of
Apple selling only IMAGE but not actually delivering on real product?

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 4:31:00 PM2/15/19
to
Or it's just the people find iPhones to be worth it.

nospam

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 4:39:56 PM2/15/19
to
In article <q479ja$fjl$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> I just pulled my (unused) charger ouf of the box and took this picture:
> <>

amazing detail! what camera did you use?

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:09:58 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:30:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Or it's just the people find iPhones to be worth it.

Remember, I buy iPhones & iPads all the time (& bought lots of iPods too).
o Hence, I happen to know what they actually can do and what they can't do

Wanna see pictures of my handful of iPads for example, & iPods too?
o Or are you finally gonna realize that I don't make shit up, Alan Baker

Just tell me, Alan Baker, how you want me to arrange them.
o FACTS + LOGIC

Clearly Apple is a BRILLIANT marketing organization
o Clearly they sell IMAGE more so than they sell actual product

For example, Apple customers clearly _line up_ outside the Apple store,
like clockwork, for the _first chance_ they get to _ditch_ their current
device, so that they can then spend more on a more expensive device.

Meanwhile, my first phones were hundreds of dollars, and each year, they
just get better and cheaper (e.g., my Nexus 5 was about $350, my Moto G
about $200, and my latest LG Stylo 3 Plus is better than both of those, at
only $130).

It's the nature of electronics to get better, faster, and cheaper over time
o It's Apple MARKETING's job to ensure that this doesn't happen.

That's basic Marketing 101, Alan Baker, and yes, I have a formal education
and work experience in that area too.

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:20:20 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:40:00 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I just pulled my (unused) charger ouf of the box and took this picture:
>> <>
>
> amazing detail! what camera did you use?

Hi nospam,
I apologize for forgetting to post the picture I snapped, but it's not
really a material fact omitted simply because of two salient facts:
o Steve knows the LG Stylo 3 Plus very well (as he owns one)
o Even so, I provided the serial number & the output spec

Yet, I _did_ goof in omitting the photos.
o Usenet is an ad hoc informal media, so, I goof every once in a while.

While I make minor errors, I'm proud of never being wrong on material fact.
o My credibility is stellar nospam - because I care about facts & logic

Out of thousands of posts of fact, I've never once been wrong materially (1)
o Even though you and the apologists would _love_ to find otherwise

To correct the error you so kindly pointed out, here's the missing photo:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4567626charger04.jpg>

Where I'm sure you'll recognize that home screen as being mine.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3344225charger03.jpg>

And where I was merely asking whether it was a "fast charger"
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9611828charger02.jpg>

And cable which came free with my $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus phone:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8169717charger01.jpg>

--
Note 1: Since I'm human, even though I'm of average intellect, if that, I
must have been wrong on material fact at least once in my thousands upon
thousands upon thousands of posts; but it's going to be rare and nobody has
ever found a case where I was wrong on material fact, simply because I
speak only Facts + Logic.






nospam

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:20:51 PM2/15/19
to
In article <q47dbl$msk$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> Remember, I buy iPhones & iPads all the time (& bought lots of iPods too).

for others, if you do at all

> o Hence, I happen to know what they actually can do and what they can't do

you don't

> Wanna see pictures of my handful of iPads for example, & iPods too?

no

> o Or are you finally gonna realize that I don't make shit up, Alan Baker

you very definitely do, especially what you call 'facts', which are
easily disproven.

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:22:31 PM2/15/19
to
On 2019-02-15 2:09 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:30:58 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Or it's just the people find iPhones to be worth it.
>
> Remember, I buy iPhones & iPads all the time (& bought lots of iPods too).
> o Hence, I happen to know what they actually can do and what they can't do

And of course you're never wrong...

...except when you are.

:-)

>
> Wanna see pictures of my handful of iPads for example, & iPods too?
> o Or are you finally gonna realize that I don't make shit up, Alan Baker

When are you finally gonna [sic] realize that you're not better than
anyone else?

>
> Just tell me, Alan Baker, how you want me to arrange them.
> o FACTS + LOGIC
>
> Clearly Apple is a BRILLIANT marketing organization
> o Clearly they sell IMAGE more so than they sell actual product

That's not a fact. That is an opinion.

>
> For example, Apple customers clearly _line up_ outside the Apple store,
> like clockwork, for the _first chance_ they get to _ditch_ their current
> device, so that they can then spend more on a more expensive device.

Some Apple customers do that? What of it?

People line up to get things they value.

>
> Meanwhile, my first phones were hundreds of dollars, and each year, they
> just get better and cheaper (e.g., my Nexus 5 was about $350, my Moto G
> about $200, and my latest LG Stylo 3 Plus is better than both of those, at
> only $130).

OK. You have different opinions than other people.

>
> It's the nature of electronics to get better, faster, and cheaper over time
> o It's Apple MARKETING's job to ensure that this doesn't happen.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

>
> That's basic Marketing 101, Alan Baker, and yes, I have a formal education
> and work experience in that area too.

I'm sure no matter what the field under discussion might be, you'll
declare you have "formal education and work experience in that area, too".

:-)

nospam

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:24:18 PM2/15/19
to
In article <q47dv2$o5q$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> >> I just pulled my (unused) charger ouf of the box and took this picture:
> >> <>
> >
> > amazing detail! what camera did you use?
>


> Yet, I _did_ goof in omitting the photos.

yep, you did.

> o Usenet is an ad hoc informal media, so, I goof every once in a while.

where 'every once in a while' is 'with shocking regularity'.

> While I make minor errors,

major

> I'm proud of never being wrong on material fact.

except that you almost always are, usually significantly so.

> o My credibility is stellar nospam - because I care about facts & logic

it isn't, and you don't.

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:32:08 PM2/15/19
to
On 2019-02-15 2:20 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:40:00 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> I just pulled my (unused) charger ouf of the box and took this picture:
>>> <>
>>
>> amazing detail! what camera did you use?
>
> Hi nospam,
> I apologize for forgetting to post the picture I snapped, but it's not
> really a material fact omitted simply because of two salient facts:
> o Steve knows the LG Stylo 3 Plus very well (as he owns one)
> o Even so, I provided the serial number & the output spec
>
> Yet, I _did_ goof in omitting the photos.
> o Usenet is an ad hoc informal media, so, I goof every once in a while.
>
> While I make minor errors, I'm proud of never being wrong on material fact.
> o My credibility is stellar nospam - because I care about facts & logic
>
> Out of thousands of posts of fact, I've never once been wrong materially (1)
> o Even though you and the apologists would _love_ to find otherwise


You were wrong about the material facts regarding when that mom posted
her YouTube video and when she emailed Apple about it.

You were wrong about Apple restarting iPhone X production.

I'm sure there are other major errors of fact you've made.

:-)

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 5:51:39 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:24:23 -0500, nospam wrote:

> where 'every once in a while' is 'with shocking regularity'.

Hi nospam,

Facts + logic
o Those are your weakness, nospam.

That you relish in finding what amounts to typos, is understood.
o It's the _best_ you _can_ do, nospam, since I only speak facts.

As an adult, let me give you some advice, nospam:
o It hasn't gone unnoticed your increasingly childish unwarranted attacks

The more you "attack", the more into childish you seem to drop.
o Witness your prior two posts in this thread alone (and others)

Remember, this is not an ad hominem attack since it's the troth
o I don't even need to prove it since you proved it just now yourself

I completely understand why you, and the other apologists do that.
o You _hate_ me simply because I speak facts
o Where facts don't fit anywhere in your imaginary belief systems

All you apologists act _exactly_ the same, where I want badgolferman to
note that it's _always_ the same score of apologists who spew childish
drivel.

o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

I posit if that score of apologists disappeared, this group would carry on
adult conversations of import, instead of reading apologists' drivel.

Facts + logic.

Meanwhile, the basic related question is for sms & adults to answer.
It's a simple FACT + LOGIC question so nospam is out of his league.

But maybe there's an adult on this ng who comprehends FACT+LOGIC?
Q: Is that charger that came with my $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus a fast charger?
Q: If so, why can't Apple provide that kind of charger with a $1000 phone?

Here's the writing on that multi-port charger (which is what I mainly use
for _all_ my devices, whether Apple or Android).
o AC Adapter HV-6PT Model HC363-5U
o Output total 6800mA Max (over five ports)
o Super Charger 5V at 2400mA Max
o Universal 5V at 1000mA Max
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9611828charger02.jpg>

Q: Does fast charging need a "special" cable?
Q: And, is tha multi-port charger a fast charger?

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 6:55:17 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:32:07 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You were wrong about the material facts regarding when that mom posted
> her YouTube video and when she emailed Apple about it.

Hi Alan Baker,

Fact + Logic
o Let's think about your statement above logically, shall we?

Remember Snit said the same thing you said, Alan Baker.
o And, like you, Snit said it hundreds & hundreds of times.

Snit even made a video, which he referred to hundreds of times.
o Just like you do, Alan Baker... just like you do.

Here's Snit's hilarious video, for example:
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

In scores of threads, just like you do, Alan Baker, Snit self assessed to
finally have found a situation where I was (he thought) wrong:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

Since Snit _thought_ he had found the first time ever that I was wrong on
material fact, Snit, like you, posted that reference over and over and over
and over (literally hundreds of times).

But you're different Alan Baker.
o You're different from Snit.

You know how, Alan Baker?
o At least Snit got nospam & Jolly Roger & even Frank Slootweg to _agree_
with him that he had finally found an app that (they all thought) could do
what I knew couldn't be done (since I happen to be of about average
intelligence, if that, so I can comprehend a decibel versus a megabit).
?o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

HINT: None of the Apologists know a megabit from a decibel.

They're _that_ incredibly stupid (that's not an ad hominem attack)
o It's the truth, which is well supported by the facts!

They all high-fived Snit for finally having proven my facts wrong
(they thought)

But you... Alan Baker.
o You're _different_ from Snit.

What's _different_ about you from Snit, Alan Baker, is that you can't even
get a single person on this entire set of newsgroups, to agree with you.

At least Snit got a few of the Apologists to agree with him.
o Why can't you get even the Apologists to back you up, Alan Baker?

That fact alone, Alan Baker...
o SHould be food for thought ... don't you think?

> You were wrong about Apple restarting iPhone X production.

WTF?
o Are you on a fishing expedition, Alan Baker?

Are you talking about one of these well-cited threads, Alan Baker?
o Apple for the FIRST TIME sells refurbished iPhone X ($770 for 64GB, $900
for 256GB, plus tax)

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BHTMjs9FX_Q>
o Apple is apparently restarting the MANUFACTURING of the iPhone X
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/s5cHLMwRpfs>

I realize you Apologists wouldn't know fact from a coloring book
o So it's with trepidation that I ask what are you talking about?

> I'm sure there are other major errors of fact you've made.

What's sad is that your imaginary belief system has taken over your brain.
o Hence, you actually _believe_ what you write, Alan Baker.

It's so sad that it takes only 3 words to prove you Apologists wrong.
o Every single time.

The three words the Apologists can never recover from, are...
o Name just one

--
(I apologize if this is the thread that I said I'd give up on you, as I use
a script-based system which doesn't keep track of people by thread.)

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:06:00 PM2/15/19
to
On 2019-02-15 3:55 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:32:07 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You were wrong about the material facts regarding when that mom posted
>> her YouTube video and when she emailed Apple about it.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> F...

Sorry, but I snipped everything that didn't address the fact that I've
shown you the mother's video and when it was posted AND the tweet where
someone who spoke with her says she emailed Apple about that video on
January 25th.

>
>> You were wrong about Apple restarting iPhone X production.
>
> WTF?
> o Are you on a fishing expedition, Alan Baker?
>
> Are you talking about one of these well-cited threads, Alan Baker?
> o Apple for the FIRST TIME sells refurbished iPhone X ($770 for 64GB, $900
> for 256GB, plus tax)
>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BHTMjs9FX_Q>
> o Apple is apparently restarting the MANUFACTURING of the iPhone X

You wrote that and called it "FACT".

It isn't a fact. It didn't happen.

:-)

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:15:50 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:05:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry, but I snipped everything that didn't address the fact that I've
> shown you the mother's video and when it was posted AND the tweet where
> someone who spoke with her says she emailed Apple about that video on
> January 25th.

Hi Alan Baker,

Fact + Logic.

I smile at your tenacity in claiming you're right in every thread, even
when the thread has nothing to do with what you're claiming; just like Snit
did, just like Lewis, just like nospam, just like Jolly Roger, et al., all
do.

And yet, you're _different from Snit in one key way, Alan Baker.
o At least Snit got the Apple Apologists to agree with him.

You can't even get a _single_ apologist to agree with you on your "facts".
o That's a fact, is it not, Alan Baker?

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:18:52 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:22:30 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> When are you finally gonna [sic] realize that you're not better than
> anyone else?

Is _that_ your problem Alan Baker?

Do you have an inferiority complex, Alan Baker?

I've said I'm only of average intelligence (if that), so many times, Alan
Baker, that for you to have an inferiority complex, that would mean ... oh
... oh ... I see.... I do.

I'm truly sorry for you.

--
PS: I don't think "sic" means what you appear to _think_ it means.

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:31:34 PM2/15/19
to
On 2019-02-15 4:15 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:05:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but I snipped everything that didn't address the fact that I've
>> shown you the mother's video and when it was posted AND the tweet where
>> someone who spoke with her says she emailed Apple about that video on
>> January 25th.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Fact + Logic.
>
> I smile at your tenacity in claiming you're right in every thread, even
> when the thread has nothing to do with what you're claiming; just like Snit
> did, just like Lewis, just like nospam, just like Jolly Roger, et al., all
> do.

I don't try and claim I'm right in EVERY thread, "Arlen" (or is it
"Steve"): that's all you.

Sorry, but I've actually presented this information.

Here, John H. Meyer (no Apple "apologist", if you bother to check is
feed) posts a video of his which shows the mother's video was posted
January 23rd:

'VIDEO: Here is a video, recorded & sent to Apple by a 14 yr old & his
mom, on JAN 23rd, alerting them to the dangerous #FaceTime bug, that has
threatened the privacy of millions. I've removed sensitive / private
info on behalf of the mother (an attorney), whom I just spoke to.'

<https://twitter.com/BEASTMODE/status/1090298850764644352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090298850764644352&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F9to5mac.com%2F2019%2F01%2F29%2Ffacetime-bug-apple-teenager%2F>

And here, he posts her letter to Apple:

'Quick facts from my call with the 14 year old’s mom:

- Yes, a 14 year old discovered this bug. He did so "around" Saturday, 1/19

- Mother is a local lawyer in AZ and sent a formal notice to Apple on 1/25

- That formal notice the mom sent to Apple on 1/25 is attached'

<https://twitter.com/BEASTMODE/status/1090303269090529280>



You put this at issue when you insisted that you never make a mistake of
material fact.

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:32:21 PM2/15/19
to
On 2019-02-15 4:18 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:22:30 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> When are you finally gonna [sic] realize that you're not better than
>> anyone else?
>
> Is _that_ your problem Alan Baker?

Nope. It's yours.

>
> Do you have an inferiority complex, Alan Baker?

Nope.

>
> I've said I'm only of average intelligence (if that), so many times, Alan
> Baker, that for you to have an inferiority complex, that would mean ... oh
> ... oh ... I see.... I do.
>
> I'm truly sorry for you.

Nope. You truly do not see.

:-)

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:52:36 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:31:32 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You put this at issue when you insisted that you never make a mistake of
> material fact.

Hi Alan Baker,

I feel sorry for you now that I better understand why you are so insistent,
like Snit, that you finally found (you think) a fact that I'm wrong at.

If it helps you feel better, I never claim to have anything more than an
average intelligence (if that).

So the reason my facts are never wrong isn't because I'm smarter than you
are. It's because I don't say things unless they are facts.

Remember when Joerg Lorenz thought that all facts were wrong simply because
they weren't in the German media that he trusts? Remember that?

Joerg denied all facts out of hand, just because they weren't in the German
media, isn't that right? Note that it wasn't that the German media was
saying that the facts were wrong even. It was just that the German media
didn't say anything about them (essentially, they were clueless or they
didn't care, but the fact is that they didn't publish anything about it).

From that, and that alone, Joerg Lorenz claimed _all_ facts in the
mainstream US and British media were dead wrong.

Joerg Lorenz _clung_ tenaciously to that claim for quite some time
(and, the sad fact is, he likely _still_ clings to that claim for all we
know).

Well, Alan Baker, you're the same way in that you can't seem to comprehend
which facts are reliable and which facts are not reliable.

*In Joerg's mind, ALL facts not in the German media, were unreliable.*

You have a similar mind to Joerg, unfortunately.
Which is why I feel a bit sorry for you.

I can't fix your mind, Alan Baker.
I can only tell you that to spar with me on facts, is not a fruitful way
for either of us to spend our time, Alan Baker.

You see, the _reason_ I'm always right on my facts, Alan Baker, isn't
because I'm of average intelligence (if that), Alan Baker.

The reason my credibility is stellar Alan Baker, is because I don't make
shit up, and I vet my facts where most of my cites are from reputable
outlets such as the New York Times, and 9to5Mac and AppleInsider, etc.

It's not my intelligence that makes my credibility stellar just like it's
not nospam's lack of intelligence that makes his credibility crap.

The reason my credibility is stellar, Alan Baker, is very simple:
o I don't make shit up, and, I cite reliable references.

One of the reasons I don't make shit up and that I cite reliable
references, Alan Baker, is that I am very well educated.

Guess how long you'd last in grad school, Alan Baker, just making shit up
and not citing reliable references?
o HINT: Not one single semester, Alan Baker.

Another reason my I don't make shit up and that I cite reliable references
Alan Baker is that I went to the finest schools in the country and I worked
in the Silicon Valley for decades, where truly intelligent people abound.

Guess how long you'd last, Alan Baker, in that environment?

Guess how long _any_ of the following would last, in that environment?
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

HINT: None of the above would last a week (IMHO).

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 7:54:41 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:32:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> Is _that_ your problem Alan Baker?
>
> Nope. It's yours.

Hi Alan Baker,

If it helps you feel better, I never claim to own anything more than an
average intelligence (if that), as I've studied and worked alongside some
truly intelligent people at some of the finest schools in this country, and
in Silicon Valley for decades, Alan Baker.

So the reason my credibility is stellar isn't because I'm smarter than you
are. It's because I don't say things unless they are facts, and, the things
I say are backed up by reliable references.

It's what people do who are adults, Alan Baker.

nospam

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 8:05:16 PM2/15/19
to
In article <q47n0d$6dl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> If it helps you feel better, I never claim to own anything more than an
> average intelligence (if that), as I've studied and worked alongside some
> truly intelligent people at some of the finest schools in this country, and
> in Silicon Valley for decades, Alan Baker.

to get into 'some of the finest schools in this country' (or outside
of, for that matter), one must be *above* average intelligence, not at
and certainly not below.

nospam

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 8:05:17 PM2/15/19
to
In article <q47msj$99q$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> If it helps you feel better, I never claim to have anything more than an
> average intelligence (if that).

except where you claim you've attended the best schools and are never
wrong, you mean?

the best schools are extremely selective and only admit smart people,
typically around 5% of all applicants.

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 15, 2019, 11:44:02 PM2/15/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:05:23 -0500, nospam wrote:

> except where you claim you've attended the best schools and are never
> wrong, you mean?
>
> the best schools are extremely selective and only admit smart people,
> typically around 5% of all applicants.

Hehhehheh.... if you only knew... (I'll send sms an email so he knows.)

All I can tell you, nospam, is the reason my credibility is stellar and
your credibility, nospam, is worthless, has nothing to do with my
intelligence, which I posit is only about average, if that.

While it's worlds' above yours, it's still just about average.
I know this because I've studied and worked with truly intelligent people.
And NOBODY on this newsgroup (not even me) comes even remotely close.

I tower over most of you in intellect; but they tower over me.

However, the reason my credibility is stellar and yours is worthless has
NOTHING to do directly without our respective intelligence levels.

The reason my credibility is stellar and yours is worthless is that
o I don't make shit up (like you do, all the time, nospam)
o I don't have an imaginary belief system (like you have, nospam)
o I LOOK at the posts that I reference (unlike you, nospam).

That last fact is instructive where you posted an absolutely idiotic set of
links just yesterday on MMS statistics, just as Jolly Roger and Lewis have
done in the past on other things, where, I'm shocked that you guys post
these links because clearly you never even once LOOKED at them before you
posted them.

Just like Snit and you and Jolly Roger and Frank Slootweg never once even
LOOKED at the Y axis of your idiotic graphs, you guys all prove to be utter
morons when it comes to FACTS.

You wouldn't last a day in a Silicon Valley company, nospam.
You wouldn't last a month in a typical grad school, nospam.
You even get your head handed to you when you post to the other ngs.

The _only_ ngs you can survive on, are the APPLE newsgroup.
You probably don't even know why I can safely say that, nospam.

Do you know why you can _only_ survive on an Apple newsgroup like this?
I do.

HINT:

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 12:01:00 AM2/16/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:05:23 -0500, nospam wrote:

> to get into 'some of the finest schools in this country' (or outside
> of, for that matter), one must be *above* average intelligence, not at
> and certainly not below.

Hehhehheh... if you only knew, nospam.
(As I said, I'll let sms know who I am, as my credibility is stellar.)

Bear in mind that the reason my credibility is stellar nospam and your
credibility is so low that it doesn't even exist is not because I tower
over you in intelligence.

My credibility is stellar and yours worse than the monkey simply because
o My belief system is underlain by a foundation of facts
o While your belief system is purely imaginary in nature

In addition, my credibility is stellar and yours worthless because
o I don't make shit up
o While you make _everything_ up.

Furthermore, my credibility is stellar and yours non existent because
o The facts I use are credible (usually from reliable media)
o Where the links you find are hilariously Snit like

In fact, in this post here, you either never once LOOKED at the links you
posted, or, more likely, you completely failed to COMPREHEND them
(just as the lemon-juice bank robber failed to comprehend chemistry).
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/6mSj5QG-oL0/nvt_R0vxEAAJ>

This is NOT an ad hominem attack since I speak valid verified facts.
o Either you're _incredibly_ stupid for posting those links,
o Or, you're just pulling our leg by playing idiotic games
o Or, more than likely, you actually _believe_ those links say what you
_think_ they say.

And yet they absolutely do not.

I don't even need brains to figure that your links were total bullshit,
nospam. That's how IDIOTIC your links were!

I mean LOOK at what you wrote in that post!
You couldn't get a passing grade in middle school with those idiotic links.

Just like when you congratulated Snit for supposedly proving my facts wrong
for the first time. Snit was so HAPPY he (thought) he proved me wrong. You
were too. So was Jolly Roger. Even Frank Slootweg fell for it.

And yet, it took me fewer than 10 seconds to see what the app did.

Not a single one of you even knew the difference between a decibel and a
megabit for Christs' sake.

NOBODY is _that_ stupid - except you.
NOTE: This is not an ad hominem attack. This is actual facts.

Here's the thread if anyone doesn't believe me that this is real.
I don't make this stuff up!

*Despite the fact it sounds like a comedy of idiots; this is real!*

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 12:06:12 AM2/16/19
to
On 2019-02-15 9:00 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:05:23 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> to get into 'some of the finest schools in this country' (or outside
>> of, for that matter), one must be*above* average intelligence, not at
>> and certainly not below.
> Hehhehheh... if you only knew, nospam.
> (As I said, I'll let sms know who I am, as my credibility is stellar.)

Wow.

Do you ever read back what you've written to yourself?

:-)

nospam

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 12:08:47 AM2/16/19
to
In article <q484eh$2i1$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> I know this because I've studied and worked with truly intelligent people.

everyone has at one time or another.

your problem is you never learned anything.

RJH

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 12:45:34 AM2/16/19
to
Certainly not the case in the UK - background a far more important
determinant.

--
Cheers, Rob

John McWilliams

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 1:14:33 AM2/16/19
to
On 2/15/19 PDT 12:39 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 04:26:28 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> more nonsense from the resident troll.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> FACT + LOGIC.
> Q: *Is your belief system really that easy to prove to be imaginary?*
>
> FACT + LOGIC.
>
> While you're great at flatly refuting facts & logic you don't like,
> what facts & logic do you use to back up your assertion of "nonsense"?
>
> Or, is your flat refutation backed up by only your imaginary beliefs?
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
>
> This is the reliable quote that sms was responding to, is it not?
> "Once again you'll need to buy a _separate_ USB-C to Lightning
> cable and a power brick that supports USB-C Power Delivery
> if you want to be able to fast-charge your $1,000 iPhone"
>
> HINT: That's a real quote, nospam; it's not an imaginary quote.
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
> Let me ask an Adult question of you nospam... if I may...
>
> FACT + LOGIC:
> Since you refute sms' logic out of hand, what non-imaginary LOGIC do you
> provide for the FACT that the statement above appears to be perfectly true?
>
> What's that?
> You have none?
>
> Really?
> You have absolutely zero facts, nospam?
> You flatly refute what sms said, and yet, you are backed up by nothing?
>
> Really?
> Q: *Is your belief system actually that easy to prove to be imaginary?*
>

Too many groups


Andreas Rutishauser

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 1:39:02 AM2/16/19
to
In article <q4781f$chq$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> Q: *Is your belief system actually that easy to prove to be imaginary?*

what does this have to do with the subject line or he eddressed news
groups?

--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

David B.

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 3:43:51 AM2/16/19
to
You sound as if there's a chip on your shoulder, Rob! ;-)

--
David B.
Devon

Johan

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 4:10:38 AM2/16/19
to
Op 16-feb.-19 om 06:39 schreef Andreas Rutishauser:
> In article <q4781f$chq$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
> arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
>> Q: *Is your belief system actually that easy to prove to be imaginary?*
>
> what does this have to do with the subject line or he eddressed news
> groups?
>
His intelligence is very low, so the only thing he can do is being a
troll. Ignore him, he needs other mediacation. And the intelligent
people he is working with are his docters in the mental institution he
is living. It's a very hard case.

RJH

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 7:23:29 AM2/16/19
to
Nope - as a middle class white boy I've been to top schools and
universities.

--
Cheers, Rob

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 1:43:40 PM2/16/19
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:10:37 +0100, Johan wrote:

> Op 16-feb.-19 om 06:39 schreef Andreas Rutishauser:
>> In article <q4781f$chq$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
>> arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Q: *Is your belief system actually that easy to prove to be imaginary?*
>>
>> what does this have to do with the subject line or he eddressed news
>> groups?
>>
> His intelligence is very low...

Thank you for confirming exactly what I've been saying all along!
There is a good reason no Apologist has _ever_ found my facts to be wrong.

It's because I speak facts.
o Well verified. Well cited. Absolute facts.

Facts form the basis of my _adult_ belief system.
*I do not own the imaginary belief system Apologists always prove to own.*

My level of intelligence (average as it may be) is not why speak facts.
o I speak facts because that's what _adults_ do.

Adults _care_ about their credibility.
o *The Apologists, clearly, do not care that they utterly lack credibility!*

In fact, the very weakness of the Apple Apologists is clear to all:
o Apologists always prove to lack comprehension of FACT & LOGIC

Notice they lack fact & logic not because they're stupid.
Notice they lack fact & logic because that's how their brains are wired.

It's proof positive EVERY time they post, that they lack FACT & LOGIC.
o It's not about intelligence

In fact, we all agree (including me) that my intelligence is only average,
if that, which is clearly NOT the reason my credibility is stellar.

There is a good reason no Apologist has _ever_ found my facts to be wrong.

The reason these people have _no_ credibility, and mine is stellar, has
_nothing_ to do with intelligence - but everything to do with the facts:
1. These people, as a whole, own a completely imaginary belief system
2. Their belief system is _exactly_ that of Apple Marketing Propaganda
Hence...
3. Facts clearly do not play a role in their imaginary belief system.

For example, they fabricate imaginary functionality all the time.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect it's simply that facts _threaten_ the foundation of their beliefs.

For example, this is a fact:
o There isn't a _single_ app functionality on iOS that isn't already on
Android (and we're not talking about a dns API which I found out about,
and, if that's the _only_ app functionality, then there's only one single
API call anyway in that case, which isn't materially significant).

Worse, there is _tons_ of app functionality on Android (as just one, the
ability to organize your desktop how you want for Christs' sake) that is
not on iOS.

*The utter shockingly HUGE lack of app functionality on iOS, is drastic!*

That's a fact.

It's also a fact that the camera output on iOS iPhones is almost always
never on top where there is almost always better Android camera output
based on Quality of Results.

That's a fact.

Nobody has ever proven those facts to be materially wrong.
Facts are funny that way.

They would _love_ to prove those facts wrong.
o They've tried - many times - each time *fabricating* imaginary functionality.

That's a fact.

You see, the reason I speak facts is that it's how adults form belief systems.

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 6:40:08 PM2/16/19
to
On 2019-02-15 4:52 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:31:32 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You put this at issue when you insisted that you never make a mistake of
>> material fact.
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I...

Let's stick to fact, shall we.

I provided two cites that refuted your claims about when the mother
reported this information to Apple, and you also claimed they didn't
reply to her until after this information broke on a different news site.

But then there's this:

'According to emails viewed by the Journal, Ms. Thompson heard back from
Apple’s security team on Wednesday, Jan. 23. At around 11:15 p.m. on
Friday, she emailed them a description of the issue, along with a link
to a YouTube video in which she and her son demonstrated how to exploit
the bug.'

<https://www.wsj.com/articles/teenager-and-his-mom-tried-to-warn-apple-of-facetime-bug-11548783393>

For your edification, "Friday" was January 25... ...just as I said.

That's the Wall Street Journal, sunshine. Is that good enough for you?

Not enough? Okay:

'“Here is a video, recorded & sent to Apple by a 14 yr old & his mom, on
JAN 23rd, alerting them to the dangerous #FaceTime bug, that has
threatened the privacy of millions,” Meyer wrote. “I’ve removed
sensitive / private info on behalf of the mother (an attorney), whom I
just spoke to.”'

<https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/michele-grant-thompson/>

Still not enough? Sure:

'VIDEO: Here is a video, recorded & sent to Apple by a 14 yr old & his
mom, on JAN 23rd, alerting them to the dangerous #FaceTime bug, that has
threatened the privacy of millions. I've removed sensitive / private
info on behalf of the mother (an attorney), whom I just spoke to.'

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2019/01/29/apple-facetime-bug-mom-tried-warn-son-found-last-week/2711382002/>

Still not enough? Why not?!!!

'Apple told Thompson she must register as a developer to report the bug
to the company. She did that and got a response on January 23'

<https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-facetime-bug-now-apple-sued-over-eavesdrop-on-lawyers-client-phone-call/>

So, despite your claims to the contrary, Apple responded to Michele
Thompson just THREE days after she reported the bug.

:-)

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 16, 2019, 6:41:03 PM2/16/19
to
On 2019-02-15 4:54 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:32:20 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Is _that_ your problem Alan Baker?
>>
>> Nope. It's yours.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> If it helps you feel better...

I don't need any help to feel better thanks.

But I'm sure it helps you to believe I do.

:-)

arlen holder

unread,
Feb 19, 2019, 4:40:41 PM2/19/19
to
Another brilliant MARKETING move by Apple is to _claim_ fast charging ...
but to not include a fast charger in the box of _any_ iPhone, even a $1000
to $1500 iPhone!

Apple first charges the customer an _astronomical_ price...
o And then Apple nickels and dimes users to death for even simple things
(like headphone jacks, replacement batteries, fast chargers, etc.)

o Does the $1000 iPhone come with a fast charger in the box or not?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/IJNKtsmqGWE>

"*Apple has _never_ included a fast charger with an iPhone*
That means getting your hands on a fast charger for your
iPhone requires you to spend a bit more cash."
<https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/how-to-fast-charge-your-iphone/>

FACT:
Q: _Does the $1000 iPhone come with a fast charger in the box or not?_
A: No

LOGIC:
*It's yet another reason iPhone owners enjoy _astronomical_ ownership costs*

Alan Baker

unread,
Feb 19, 2019, 4:44:25 PM2/19/19
to
On 2019-02-19 1:40 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
Does Apple hide that fact?

No.

>
> LOGIC:
> *It's yet another reason iPhone owners enjoy _astronomical_ ownership costs*

And yet Apple is still selling lots and lots of iPhones, year after year.

It's almost like people value what they sell.

:-)

sms

unread,
Feb 20, 2019, 12:12:05 PM2/20/19
to
On 2/19/2019 1:40 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> *It's yet another reason iPhone owners enjoy _astronomical_ ownership costs*

You have to look at the statistical data and the big picture.

The iPhone replacement cycles in 2019 is estimated to have lengthened to
four years
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/08/apple-iphone-replacement-cycle-slowing-toni-sacconaghi-says.html>.
For Android it's much shorter, about two years, though longer for
flagships and shorter for non-flagships.

Since Apple provides OS upgrades for much longer than Android
manufacturers, and because their devices are more expensive, users
upgrade less frequently. So the ownership cost per year goes down even
though the ASP goes up. Also, the resale value of a used iPhone is much
higher than that of a used Android phone so you recover some of that
extra cost when you upgrade.

I do agree that not including a fast-charger in the box is kind of
cheap, but obviously they've decided that it makes sense financially.
Most users charge their phone overnight and the regular charger is
sufficient. Saving a dollar in manufacturing cost per device adds up
when you're selling hundreds of millions of devices per year.

In the hyper-competitive Android market, not including a fast-charger
could result and lost phone sales to a competitor. For the iPhone, no
one is going to switch to Android just because a fast charger isn't
included, they'll just spend the money for a fast charger.

The first generation Moto G came with no charger at all, just a USB-A to
Micro USB cable.






nospam

unread,
Feb 20, 2019, 12:20:28 PM2/20/19
to
In article <q4k1p4$eku$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I do agree that not including a fast-charger in the box is kind of
> cheap, but obviously they've decided that it makes sense financially.
> Most users charge their phone overnight and the regular charger is
> sufficient. Saving a dollar in manufacturing cost per device adds up
> when you're selling hundreds of millions of devices per year.

it's not needed.

iphones last 1-2 days on a single charge, so there's no need for a fast
charge. it's convenient, but not required.

most android phones do not last that long, thus they *need* a fast
charge for the midday top-up.

> In the hyper-competitive Android market, not including a fast-charger
> could result and lost phone sales to a competitor.

not really. most people don't obsess over charge time.

those who need long run times choose a phone that lasts a long time or
they get a battery case.

> For the iPhone, no
> one is going to switch to Android just because a fast charger isn't
> included, they'll just spend the money for a fast charger.

or not at all, since it's not needed.

> The first generation Moto G came with no charger at all, just a USB-A to
> Micro USB cable.

cutting corners wherever possible.

Lewis

unread,
Feb 20, 2019, 5:10:32 PM2/20/19
to
In message <q4k1p4$eku$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I do agree that not including a fast-charger in the box is kind of
> cheap, but obviously they've decided that it makes sense financially.

More likely they can't manufacture over 100 million high power chargers
per year.

--
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

nospam

unread,
Feb 20, 2019, 5:17:20 PM2/20/19
to
In article <slrnq6rk2n....@Snow.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > I do agree that not including a fast-charger in the box is kind of
> > cheap, but obviously they've decided that it makes sense financially.
>
> More likely they can't manufacture over 100 million high power chargers
> per year.

that too.

Erilar

unread,
Feb 23, 2019, 10:21:17 AM2/23/19
to
Giggling 8-). So true!

--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad

arlen holder

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 4:07:19 PM4/8/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:00:46 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?

Interestingly, this week, another apparently smart move was made by Apple.

O Why did Apple kill its AirPower wireless charger?
<https://www.computerworld.com/article/3384715/why-did-apple-kill-its-airpower-wireless-charger.html>

"After Apple canceled plans to launch its AirPower wireless charger
more than a year and a half after announcing it, at least one analyst said
*the company's explanation sounds fishy*."

This is what the analysist said, verbatim:
"Does that mean their engineering staff couldn't design a product that
met the needs? I know they are stringent in their designs, but given they
have complete control (unless they outsourced it all), and they've had
plenty of time to make it work, my guess is they just gave up because they
were so late to market and there are already a ton of competing products
out there," Gold said via email."

If that is correct, then Apple MARKETING did their job well (yet again).
"A market saturated with competing projects could have precluded Apple
from charging its normal premium product price and so it may not have been
worthwhile from a profitability standpoint, Gold said."

The article goes on positing one scenario, which is that Apple bought the
technology from outside of Apple and that before Apple could release it
fully baked, others came into the market, so they pulled the plug.

If that hypothesis is correct, then Apple's explanation is simply yet
another lie (which is so common with Apple that it's not even astounding
anymore when they publicly lie), where the actual truth is something that
we're all trying to figure out - but which isn't likely to come out of any
official mouth at Apple.

If MARKETING pulled the plug, then they did what they're supposed to do.
o I wouldn't blame them

I just wish Apple would tell the truth once in a while, that's all.

Alan Baker

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 4:34:10 PM4/8/19
to
So you simply assume a hypothesis must be true and then decide Apple lied.

Your Name

unread,
Apr 8, 2019, 10:05:13 PM4/8/19
to
On 2019-04-08 20:07:18 +0000, arlen holder said:
>

The name-changing cretin posts yet another pile of anti-Apple,
know-nothing bollocks. :-\

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
May 13, 2019, 9:08:58 PM5/13/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:00:46 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> *What do _you_ think was the most brilliant marketing move by Apple?*

I think another brilliant move by Apple marketing...
o Is the marketing of iOS as somehow (magically?) more private than
Android.

This response, just now, to SavageDuck, shows how the privacy on iOS is a
mere illusion, since it's a cherry-picked set that Apple MAKRETING
brilliantly touts ...

But they'll never tout privacy against Google apps, for example.
See my factual response to SavageDuck just now, shown below...

On Mon, 13 May 2019 17:07:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> Yup! downloaded, installed, & used.

Hi Savageduck,

*Too bad you have _no privacy_ on iOS when using YouTube*
o Plus, you are forced to constantly see in-line advertisements

On Android, you'd have privacy that isn't available on iOS
o And, you'd _never_ even once see any inline advertisements whatsoever!

It's a fact that you just can't get this kind of privacy on iOS:
o https://newpipe.schabi.org/

The fact is, anyone who actually believes that iOS has privacy
o Likely also believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, & the Tooth Fairy.

Apple advertises _imaginary privacy_ on iOS
o Where the facts shows that the privacy is "about the same" with Android

Some things, are _much_ more private on Android than on iOS
o Such as Google Maps or Google Youtube or Google Play app downloads

While other things are much more private on iOS

In the end, anyone who says that either one is more private
o Clearly owns an imaginary belief system

It's one more reason why I say that the typical apologist
o Just wants to _feel_ safe - without actually being safe.

And Apple is very happy to MARKETING that _feeling_ of safety
o Without actually providing it, in fact.

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Jul 28, 2019, 11:57:38 AM7/28/19
to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:05:12 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> The name-changing cretin posts yet another pile of anti-Apple,
> know-nothing bollocks. :-\

Ah ... maybe I know more about Apple & Apple Apologists than you think.

A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

A classic case of the imaginary privacy advertised by Apple ensued today...
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZN_5IjhNFSM/1x6tTFmxEgAJ>

Based on reliable facts showing Apple is no more private than anyone else:
o Workers hear drug deals, medical details and people having sex
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>

This situation is absolutely canonically CLASSIC for how the dynamic works!
1. Apple spends millions advertising (what is, in fact imaginary) privacy
2. Apple Apologists _believe_ (hook line & sinker) in that imaginary belief
3. Facts show privacy on Apple products is no different than anywhere else
4. Not only do the Apologists instantly (brazenly in fact) deny these facts
5. The Apologists always blame everyone but Apple for Apple's flaws!

This situation has been repeated for decades, and, as such, is classic!
First - Apple woos susceptible people with admittedly brilliant MARKETING!
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

Then, the truth comes out that Apple is no more private than anyone else
o Apple is paying contractors to personally listen to millions of private
recorded Siri conversations every day which is NOT explicitly disclosed in
Apple's privacy pollicy
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ia3wMAwiD74>

*Facts instantly _DESTROY_ the apologists' imaginary belief system!*

Such that the Apologists react using the _same_ half-dozen traits
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple
Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Where the canonical response by apologists is to blame everyone but Apple!
o Apple Addresses Privacy Questions About 'Hey Siri'
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/xqZp1CKP/apple-addresses-privacy-questions-about-hey-siri>

Notice the pattern?

Essentially, Apple sold privacy to the apologists, but the fact is that
Apple is no more private than anyone else is - and when the apologists find
that out - they BLAME EVERYONE BUT APPLE for Apple being just like
everyone!
o As expected, Apple beginning to play up the imaginary privacy of iPhones
(since they can't compete on performance)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EfMlrgxWkvQ/d6lR8F-kBAAJ>

Mere facts instantly destroy Apologists's imaginary belief systems:
o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs/ATC1S3s4FQAJ>

In summary, it's elucidating to realize this is a classic documentation of
A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)
B. Yet, Apple brilliantly advertises that they're _different_ on privacy.
C. Worse, Apologists _believe_ this highly advertised (but false) claim
D. Then, when mere facts come out saying Apple is the same as everyone else
E. Amazingly, Apologists blame everyone but Apple for Apple being the same!

Do you see how hilariously comic this canonical interaction proves to be?

nospam

unread,
Jul 28, 2019, 12:25:01 PM7/28/19
to
In article <qhkglh$5nc$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Ah ... maybe I know more about Apple & Apple Apologists than you think.

definitely not.

Alan Baker

unread,
Jul 29, 2019, 11:01:36 AM7/29/19
to
On 2019-07-28 8:57 a.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:05:12 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
>> The name-changing cretin posts yet another pile of anti-Apple,
>> know-nothing bollocks. :-\
>
> Ah ... maybe I know more about Apple & Apple Apologists than you think.
>
> A. Apple is the same on privacy as everyone else (which is just a fact)

Nope. It's an assertion. You should bother to learn the difference some
time.

<snip>

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Aug 4, 2019, 1:21:53 AM8/4/19
to
Another brilliant move by Apple, particularly in the wake of the
revelations that Apple only cares about actual privacy when the shit hits
the fan.

Otherwise, Apple is content to advertise the mere _illusion_ of privacy.

From the Guardian:
"The company values its reputation for user privacy highly, regularly
wielding it as a competitive advantage against Google and Amazon. In
January, it bought a billboard at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las
Vegas announcing that "*what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone*".
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/apple-contractors-regularly-hear-confidential-details-on-siri-recordings>

Hehhehheh.... and yet, it doesn't.

Brilliant advertising for sure
O But it's all a lie

The only people who fall for this mere _illusion_ of privacy
o Are those who can't discern fact from marketing bullshit

Arlen G. Holder

unread,
Sep 7, 2019, 1:11:48 PM9/7/19
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 03:00:46 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> *What do _you_ think was the most brilliant marketing move by Apple?*

Today we find yet another (admittedly brilliant) move by Apple marketing!
o Apple is officially upset Google exposed the imaginary security Apple widely promotes (blaming Google for the iOS diarrhea)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1HfjUt0wwFA>

What Apple (admittedly brilliantly) said was as if Takita was saying:
o Yes our faulty airbags are in every car out there because we didn't test
o But - only thousands of people died per day - so it's really no big deal.

That clever ploy clearly fools those people who don't own an adult mind
o People who can't comprehend basic facts, and, therefore,
o Those people can't form logical assessments of those basic facts.

FACTS:
1. Google stated clearly the 14 iOS FLAWs existed for two years.
(Apple does NOT dispute that fact.)

2. Google stated the FLAW affected almost every iOS device from 10 to 12.
(Apple does NOT dispute that fact.)

3. Google stated clearly the software essentially wasn't tested
(Apple mildly disputes that fact, saying they "care about privacy".)

Notice what ADULTS will notice based on those facts:
o Google never once said how long the web sites were in operation!
(Becuase that isn't what matters.)
o Google did accurately state how many phones were compromised
(Google clearly said it was in the "thousands" per day.)

Note that Apple doesn't (nay, can't) refute those facts above.
o So what does Apple do (they fool people like Alan Baker.)

The real question is why are people like Alan Baker so easily fooled?
o I don't know why.

I think it's because people like Alan Baker can't do two simple things:
a. They can't comprehend even the most basic of facts, and,
b. Hence, they can't form logical assessments of those basic facts.

The facts are clear, which Apple does NOT dispute:
o The flaws were in almost all iOS devices from iOS 10 to 12 for years!
o The flaws exist because Apple didn't do sufficient testing for years!

What Apple (admittedly brilliantly) said was as if Takita was saying:
o Yes our faulty airbags are in every car out there because we didn't test
o But - only thousands of people died per day - so it's really no big deal.

HINT: The facts are what matter - not Apple's self-serving spin on them!

Why are people like nospam & Alan Baker so easily swayed by Apple spin?
o I suspect they don't have the two things normal adults should have

a. The ability to comprehend basic facts, and,
b. The ability to form reasonable assessments of those basic facts.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages