Why is the iPhone/iPad one of the most successful mobile device platforms in the market?

[harry newton]

Why is the iPhone/iPad one of the most successful mobile device platforms
in the market?

Clearly Apple iOS iPhone & iPad platforms are overwhelmingly successful.
But why?

What are the main reasons millions of people, including some of my own
relatives, *love* the Apple iOS platform?

[Piso Mojado]

Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
rolled into one.

Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new since
Steve went on to the big server in the sky. Not sure how long they can
continue their market-dominating run without a new next big thing.

There's really only been tweaks in the last few years. I like my Apple
stuff. I hope they can pull it off...

--
The lion may be king of the jungle, but airdrop him into Antarctica and
he's just a penguin's bitch.
-- Capt. James Pickett, US Army

[nospam]

In article <ouv4lk$a47$1...@news.albasani.net>, Piso Mojado

<cons...@trapeador.net> wrote:

> Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new since
> Steve went on to the big server in the sky. Not sure how long they can
> continue their market-dominating run without a new next big thing.
>
> There's really only been tweaks in the last few years. I like my Apple
> stuff. I hope they can pull it off...

nonsense. apple has come out with several highly successful products
since steve passed away.

[Piso Mojado]

...but the design drawings were on crumpled napkins they found when they
cleaned out Steve's desk.

--
I miss the country I grew up in.

[Elden]

+1

--
-=Elden=-

[Your Name]

Many of the ideas where also created by other people at Apple, but
Steve Jobs had the ability to see what was and wasn't going to work.
Johny Ive and Tim Cook simply don't have any ability with technology
(one is a box designer and the other is a do-nothing manager), so
aren't anywhere near what Apple needs as real leadership.

The only actually "new" hardware product Apple has had is the Home Pod,
which has now been delayed until next year. Everything else is simply a
tweaked version of what already existed in their product line-up, but
there is only so much that can be done, sensibly, to existing products.

Apple is of course reportedly working on autonomous cars (although
apparently dropped the idae of making the actual car themselves) and
"iGlasses", among many other more secret ideas in their R&D department
... whether any of these ideas become "the next big thing", or even
make it to production, is yet to be known.

They have also been working on the software side with things like Home
Kit, Health Kit, etc., although these are mostly pointless to the vast
majority of people.

[Lewis]

In message <ouv4lk$a47$1...@news.albasani.net> Piso Mojado <cons...@trapeador.net> wrote:
> Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new since
> Steve

That is utter and complete bullshit. Apple continues to innovate in both
hardware and software. Fuck, just their chip design is kicking the shit
out of every other company to such an extent that Intel and AMD are
teaming up, which is about like the Yankees and Red Sox teaming up
together, as the companies *hate* each other, but they are both getting
obliterated by Apple's chip design.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-a11-bionic-benchmarks/
Compared to the Samsung Galaxy S8, the iPhone 8 performs more than
twice as good in single-core tests, and while things aren’t quite so
dire in multicore tests, the Samsung Galaxy S8’s 6495 still doesn’t
come close to the iPhone 8’s 9983.

Double the performance in single core and 50% more in multi core.
Qualcomm should be embarrassed.

--
And, btw, my face cannot go blue because I have no face, I am not like that...
--Dorayme, in a fit of nonsensical drivel

[Lewis]

In message <ouvcf0$1duj$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-20 18:01:44 +0000, Piso Mojado said:
>> On 11/20/17 12:56 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <ouv4lk$a47$1...@news.albasani.net>, Piso Mojado
>>> <cons...@trapeador.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new since
>>>> Steve went on to the big server in the sky. Not sure how long they can
>>>> continue their market-dominating run without a new next big thing.
>>>>
>>>> There's really only been tweaks in the last few years. I like my Apple
>>>> stuff. I hope they can pull it off...
>>>
>>> nonsense. apple has come out with several highly successful products
>>> since steve passed away.
>>
>> ...but the design drawings were on crumpled napkins they found when
>> they cleaned out Steve's desk.

> Many of the ideas where also created by other people at Apple, but
> Steve Jobs had the ability to see what was and wasn't going to work.
> Johny Ive and Tim Cook simply don't have any ability with technology
> (one is a box designer and the other is a do-nothing manager), so
> aren't anywhere near what Apple needs as real leadership.

> The only actually "new" hardware product Apple has had is the Home Pod,
> which has now been delayed until next year.

Utterly false. The iPad Pro, True Tone, Pro Motion, Apple Watch, FaceID,
AirPods, Apple Pencil, APFS, TouchBar, and many many more.

> They have also been working on the software side with things like Home
> Kit, Health Kit, etc., although these are mostly pointless to the vast
> majority of people.

Nope. HealthKit alone is huge and is *already* saving people's lives and
providing invaluable data to scientists.

--
Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-11-20 15:53, Lewis wrote:

> Utterly false. The iPad Pro, True Tone, Pro Motion, Apple Watch, FaceID,
> AirPods, Apple Pencil, APFS, TouchBar, and many many more.

FaceID may be new to Apple, but that is because they bought the company
that did the similar hardware for the X Box Kinect.

So Apple didn't "invent" the hardware and some of the core stuff, but it
integrated and improved it to make FaceID.

[nospam]

In article <slrnp16g64....@snow.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > The only actually "new" hardware product Apple has had is the Home Pod,
> > which has now been delayed until next year.
>
> Utterly false. The iPad Pro, True Tone, Pro Motion, Apple Watch, FaceID,
> AirPods, Apple Pencil, APFS, TouchBar, and many many more.

imac pro (expected next month), homepod (announced & demoed, but
delayed), mac pro (work in progress).

also note that apple is now the #1 watch vendor.

> > They have also been working on the software side with things like Home
> > Kit, Health Kit, etc., although these are mostly pointless to the vast
> > majority of people.
>
> Nope. HealthKit alone is huge and is *already* saving people's lives and
> providing invaluable data to scientists.

yep.

homekit is also incredibly useful, combining multiple diverse iot
products into one app (apple's or someone else's) rather than needing
to use a bunch of different apps from the various device manufacturers,
most of which are complete garbage.

[nospam]

In article <5a1341f8$0$20664$b1db1813$4ef1...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> FaceID may be new to Apple, but that is because they bought the company
> that did the similar hardware for the X Box Kinect.

they did a lot more than buy it and repackage it.

[sms]

Well-designed
Minimalist
Classy

You complain constantly about what iOS devices can't do. And it's true,
that Android devices do have a lot more capability, and if you need to
do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.

I really like my new iPad Pro. Good camera, the pencil is nice (other
than the funky way to charge it!), and with the Logitech keyboard using
the smart connector, it's sufficient for most stuff when traveling. I do
miss the mouse when using the iPad as a computer (mice work with Android
tablets), and I hate having to use iTunes for music, but that's about
the extent of my complaints.

I went to the new Apple Visitor Center at the new Apple Park Campus last
Thursday when they had the grand opening for local residents. So well
done. They could have cheaped out, but they didn't. Everything, from the
outdoor and indoor beautiful Japanese teak furniture, to the stairways
to the roof, to the underground parking garage, are a testament to good
design. The cappuccino was excellent. Definitely worth a trip down to
Cupertino when visiting the Bay Area, just to go to the new visitor
center. Buy all your Apple products at the visitor's center store.

[nospam]

In article <ouvi9o$fq6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> On 11/20/2017 5:34 AM, harry newton wrote:

...

> You complain constantly about what iOS devices can't do. And it's true,
> that Android devices do have a lot more capability,

nothing does everything. android does some things ios can't and ios
does some things android can't.

> and if you need to
> do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
> applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.

nonsense. ios is a *much* better choice for all of those, particularly
medical.

[Davoud]

sms:
> ...if you need to

> do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
> applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.

Yet those are precisely the endeavors in which the iPad has gained
traction. The factory floor, the laboratory, the doctor's office and
the hospital. And today I talked to a construction contractor who was
studying a drawing on an iPad Pro at his table in a diner. He said he
had replaced all of his laptops with iPad Pro. Get out and have a look
around!

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

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-11-20 17:24, nospam wrote:

> nothing does everything. android does some things ios can't and ios
> does some things android can't.

It isn't just the binary "can" or "can't" do. There is a qualititive
value of how well it does it, or how easy it is to do.


And it isn't just the numbers in a camera. A phone with 13MP sensor
looks better on paper than in iPhone with its 12MP. But the iPhone's
sensor may be better quality and thus able to take much better pictures
at night or in difficult situations.

A lot of non-Apple phones win the "numbers" race against the iPhone and
are priced much lower, but even though their camera appears better on
paper, in real life, it can be dismal because they have a cheap sensor
and cheap lenses.

Note that Android != Samsung and while Samsung's premium phones may
rival the iPhone, the vast majority of the Android ecosystem is far
lower quality even if ion paper it is on par with features.


This is the same with CPU speed and RAM. A phone may have better numbers
on paper, but the iPhone will outperform in real life because it has
more efficient software than a JAVA based engine. And the same can be
said of battery.

Android bragged about mutitasking while Apple was reluctant to enable
it. But when Appel did enable it, it did it smartly with limits of power
draw for background applications, menus to enable/disable background on
a per application basis etc.

So while Android can claim to be first with multitasking enabled, when
Apple cam out with iot, it did a better job.

In fact, Apple has always been good about battery autonomy in terms of
refusing feature bloat that could jeoperdize battery autonomy.

The problem is that you can't quantify those qualitive advantages when
comparing tech specs.

[nospam]

In article <5a135a6e$0$1645$b1db1813$c2d2...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > nothing does everything. android does some things ios can't and ios
> > does some things android can't.
>
> It isn't just the binary "can" or "can't" do. There is a qualititive
> value of how well it does it, or how easy it is to do.

that's also true.

user experience never makes a checklist.

> And it isn't just the numbers in a camera. A phone with 13MP sensor
> looks better on paper than in iPhone with its 12MP. But the iPhone's
> sensor may be better quality and thus able to take much better pictures
> at night or in difficult situations.

yep, and it's not just phones. the same happens with traditional
cameras.

> A lot of non-Apple phones win the "numbers" race against the iPhone and
> are priced much lower, but even though their camera appears better on
> paper, in real life, it can be dismal because they have a cheap sensor
> and cheap lenses.

and less sophisticated image processing.

> Note that Android != Samsung and while Samsung's premium phones may
> rival the iPhone, the vast majority of the Android ecosystem is far
> lower quality even if ion paper it is on par with features.

the best selling android phones are samsung.

[sms]

On 11/20/2017 2:26 PM, Davoud wrote:
> sms:
>> ...if you need to
>> do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
>> applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.
>
> Yet those are precisely the endeavors in which the iPad has gained
> traction. The factory floor, the laboratory, the doctor's office and
> the hospital. And today I talked to a construction contractor who was
> studying a drawing on an iPad Pro at his table in a diner. He said he
> had replaced all of his laptops with iPad Pro. Get out and have a look
> around!

Well in my professional field, the iPad would not be usable for a lot of
stuff because we actually do need some applications that iOS does not
allow, plus we need to connect various instruments to the tablet.

For medical use, Android tablets are popular because you can connect a
variety of USB monitors and sensors (blood pressure, pulse-oximeter,
scales, glucose meters), these can't be used on a tablet without host
USB. Apple also doesn't support the SPP Bluetooth protocolw which limits
Bluetooth connectivity. I can see how a contractor would like looking at
drawings on an iPad.

My main iPas use is in meetings with the app iLegislate, which doesn't
have an Android equivalent that works. With the Apple Pencil it's very
usable, but when I had the iPad Air without the Pencil it was not a good
platform for that app.

Annoyingly Nextdoor does not have an iOS version for iPad, and while
they say you can put the iPhone version onto iPad, it is limited
functionality. Yet they have a full-featured Android version.

[sms]

On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:

<snip>

> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
> rolled into one.

What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had Apple
do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal computer,
or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or tablet, but
the inventors of those products were unable to get the design or
marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that Apple
invented all of those products.

> Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new since
> Steve went on to the big server in the sky. Not sure how long they can
> continue their market-dominating run without a new next big thing.

In the meantime they are making a lot of money with careful planned
release of improved versions of existing products. You don't criticize
Toyota or Honda because they don't come out with new product lines every
year, but they improve their products every year (usually).

I was hoping that Apple would buy Nest, but Google grabbed them. Those
products have a lot of potential. Maybe Apple should buy Tesla and solve
their manufacturing issues. There is no good reason that an electric
vehicle with a 300 mile range should cost more than a gasoline powered
vehicle with the same range.

[nospam]

In article <ouvrm1$fdh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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


> I was hoping that Apple would buy Nest, but Google grabbed them.

there was no reason for apple to buy nest.

> Those
> products have a lot of potential. Maybe Apple should buy Tesla and solve
> their manufacturing issues.

there's no reason to do that either

> There is no good reason that an electric
> vehicle with a 300 mile range should cost more than a gasoline powered
> vehicle with the same range.

yes there is. batteries of that capacity are *not* cheap.

[nospam]

In article <ouvpvb$5ko$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >> ...if you need to
> >> do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
> >> applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.
> >
> > Yet those are precisely the endeavors in which the iPad has gained
> > traction. The factory floor, the laboratory, the doctor's office and
> > the hospital. And today I talked to a construction contractor who was
> > studying a drawing on an iPad Pro at his table in a diner. He said he
> > had replaced all of his laptops with iPad Pro. Get out and have a look
> > around!
>
> Well in my professional field, the iPad would not be usable for a lot of
> stuff because we actually do need some applications that iOS does not
> allow, plus we need to connect various instruments to the tablet.

such as what, exactly?

has such an app been written and rejected?

or are you mistakenly assuming it won't be allowed?

> For medical use, Android tablets are popular because you can connect a
> variety of USB monitors and sensors (blood pressure, pulse-oximeter,
> scales, glucose meters), these can't be used on a tablet without host
> USB. Apple also doesn't support the SPP Bluetooth protocolw which limits
> Bluetooth connectivity. I can see how a contractor would like looking at
> drawings on an iPad.

complete utter nonsense.

first of all, spp is archaic and obsolete. modern health sensors as
well as *many* other wireless devices use bluetooth 4, which android
also supports.

second, ios devices, the apple watch and even macs fully support a
*wide* variety of health monitoring devices, which connect via wifi,
bluetooth, usb or lightning, depending on the monitor and the device.

this company makes a variety of devices, and they're not the only one
either:
<https://ihealthlabs.com/glucometer/wireless-smart-gluco-monitoring-syst
em/>
<https://ihealthlabs.com/fitness-devices/wireless-pulse-oximeter/>
<https://ihealthlabs.com/wireless-scales/ihealth-lite/>

even older iphones supported health devices:
<http://www.mobihealthnews.com/8950/sanofi-aventis-agamatrix-to-launch-f
irst-medical-iphone-peripheral/>

lastly, apple's healthkit, carekit and researchkit makes for the ideal
platform for medical devices. nothing on the android side comes close.

> My main iPas use is in meetings with the app iLegislate, which doesn't
> have an Android equivalent that works. With the Apple Pencil it's very
> usable, but when I had the iPad Air without the Pencil it was not a good
> platform for that app.

what you want is a laptop, not a tablet.

> Annoyingly Nextdoor does not have an iOS version for iPad, and while
> they say you can put the iPhone version onto iPad, it is limited
> functionality. Yet they have a full-featured Android version.

that's not apple's fault.

[Snit]

On 11/20/17, 5:23 PM, in article ouvrm1$fdh$1...@dont-email.me, "sms"

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

> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>> rolled into one.
>
> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had Apple
> do those products right.

Exactly. It was not about doing something first, it was about finding where
things are done poorly and doing them better.

> Apple didn't have the first personal computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital
> music player or smart phone, or tablet, but the inventors of those products
> were unable to get the design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of
> people believe that Apple invented all of those products.

Some might... but Apple does not pretend they do. Those who troll, though,
attack Apple for NOT having invented those things.

>> Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new since
>> Steve went on to the big server in the sky. Not sure how long they can
>> continue their market-dominating run without a new next big thing.
>
> In the meantime they are making a lot of money with careful planned
> release of improved versions of existing products. You don't criticize
> Toyota or Honda because they don't come out with new product lines every
> year, but they improve their products every year (usually).
>
> I was hoping that Apple would buy Nest, but Google grabbed them. Those
> products have a lot of potential. Maybe Apple should buy Tesla and solve
> their manufacturing issues. There is no good reason that an electric
> vehicle with a 300 mile range should cost more than a gasoline powered
> vehicle with the same range.

Batteries are not cheap... and not sure what other innovation Apple could
have added there. What is done poorly about modern cars? Keep in mind Apple
is not about just adding tons of features... so would have to be common
features done poorly.

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

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:50:43 -0500, Piso Mojado
<cons...@trapeador.net> wrote:

<clip>

>> What are the main reasons millions of people, including some of my own
>> relatives, *love* the Apple iOS platform?
>
>Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>rolled into one.

He was no Edison, Ford nor Browning having invented very little if
anything.

Jobs was a great designer with far reaching vision that transformed
existing products to make them greater than the original idea....then
brilliantly market them.
>

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-11-20 18:07, nospam wrote:

> the best selling android phones are samsung.

The Android marketplace is very fragmented. Samsung may have much better
visibility, but there are a lot of phone makers, many of whcih are not
seen in North America which have huge volumes.

[nospam]

In article <5a1390f0$0$39816$b1db1813$3686...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > the best selling android phones are samsung.
>
> The Android marketplace is very fragmented.

yes

> Samsung may have much better
> visibility, but there are a lot of phone makers,

yes

> many of whcih are not
> seen in North America which have huge volumes.

no.

[harry newton]

He who is sms said on Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:43:19 -0800:

> Well-designed
> Minimalist
> Classy

I agree on all counts above, especially the minimalist approach, which
people seem to like because it makes using iOS simple (e.g., fewer
buttons).

Somewhere embedded in those three is that the "walled garden" works well
for kids, mostly the females in my family, who are non technical and
therefore who just want one of their friends to show them what buttons to
press.

The girls *love* the iPhone - of that there is no doubt, since one even
replaced her Nexus 5 I gave as a gift, after a few years, with a free
iPhone 6 from a relative, and then, a year later, with an iPhone 7 which
she paid full price all by herself.

For all, it's all about simplicity and not at all about functionality.

> You complain constantly about what iOS devices can't do.

No. You misinterpret my entire intent.
All I care about are facts.

I care that people have the correct facts (not fabricated functionality).

Hence, I complain that the iOS users aren't *honest* to themselves, nor are
they honest to the poor iOS gullibles, and to the rest of us - with respect
to facts.

Given all I care about are facts, there are three types of iOS posters:
a. Those (like nospam) who purposefully distort what iOS apps can do
b. Those (like Lewis) who don't know anything about what iOS apps can do
c. Those (like Snit) who are emotional wrecks with respect to iOS facts

All those types are hopeless because they have their own agendas, so they
never speak the truth about anything.

What I care about are the iOS gullibles getting the correct facts.
d. People (like Michelle & Patty) who just ask basic questions
e. People (like you and me) who ask far more technical questions

So what you see as "complaining" is just setting the facts correctly that
the types (a, b, c, above) have distorted for their strange emotional
purposes (personally, I think nospam works for Apple Marketing because he
knows too much and yet blatantly lies far too much at the same time).

The rest are just emotional wrecks who can't comprehend iOS app facts.

> And it's true,
> that Android devices do have a lot more capability, and if you need to
> do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
> applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.

Actually, while Android does have far more functional app capability, I've
seen that those who love iOS don't even *notice* their lack of
functionality.

None of them even thought about changing the app launcher, for example, and
if they tried to organize their desktop (e.g., to put an app in two
different logical places), they just give up very quickly.

So I find that those who love iOS give up really (really) fast, so, it's
not at all a big deal to them that Android has the functionality that we
happen to know it has (e.g., loading any desire app launcher or any app
from any location or WiFi/Cellular diagnostic apps, etc.).

The people who love iOS don't even notice because they give up so easily.

lack of app functionality is not a negative to them - because simplicity is
their positive.

> I really like my new iPad Pro. Good camera, the pencil is nice (other
> than the funky way to charge it!), and with the Logitech keyboard using
> the smart connector, it's sufficient for most stuff when traveling. I do
> miss the mouse when using the iPad as a computer (mice work with Android
> tablets), and I hate having to use iTunes for music, but that's about
> the extent of my complaints.

I love my iPads, and the kids I've gifted iPhones to love them also (one of
whom used an iPhone 3 in her high-school days when I jailbroke it to run
Cydia so that we could switch from AT&T to T-Mobile for her).

I have to agree with you that the products are good quality, and well made,
and the work extremely well inside the walled garden (particularly if you
love using the cloud and even moreso if you communicate a lot with other
users inside the walled garden - which kids do a lot).

> I went to the new Apple Visitor Center at the new Apple Park Campus last
> Thursday when they had the grand opening for local residents. So well
> done. They could have cheaped out, but they didn't. Everything, from the
> outdoor and indoor beautiful Japanese teak furniture, to the stairways
> to the roof, to the underground parking garage, are a testament to good
> design. The cappuccino was excellent. Definitely worth a trip down to
> Cupertino when visiting the Bay Area, just to go to the new visitor
> center. Buy all your Apple products at the visitor's center store.

As you know, we're both close to that area (although you are closer), so
I'll take you up on that offer. Someday it would be nice to meet you, as
you're one of the very rare *balanced* people here who act like an adult.

The only balanced people I can recall, without looking at my list, is:
* You (sms),
* Poutnik,
* David Empson (although he won't discuss anything bad about iOS)
* most of the ladies (although none know much) such as Patty, Erilar,
Michelle, etc.
* and me

In summary, I don't complain about iOS - because I use and like the
products; I just correct iOS lies and fabrications - which the liars and
fabricators interpret as complaining.

By always saying true facts about iOS and the users, they *interpret* that
as complaining - but they are just iOS facts that they don't like.

[Snit]

On 11/20/17, 9:18 PM, in article ov09eb$nf1$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

Keep in mind you are the one who focuses on feelings pretty much non-stop.
...

[Your Name]

On 2017-11-21 00:23:29 +0000, sms said:
> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>> rolled into one.
>
> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had
> Apple do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal
> computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or
> tablet, but the inventors of those products were unable to get the
> design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that
> Apple invented all of those products.

Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
horrible kitset piece of crap. The Apple II was the first true, mass
market, "personal computer" that *anybody* could use, rather than just
electronics hobbyists with their soldering irons.

Technically the Commodore PET was announced first, but it wasn't
actually obtainable until after the Apple II.

[Your Name]

On 2017-11-21 01:25:14 +0000, Snit said:
> On 11/20/17, 5:23 PM, in article ouvrm1$fdh$1...@dont-email.me, "sms"
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was hoping that Apple would buy Nest, but Google grabbed them. Those
>> products have a lot of potential. Maybe Apple should buy Tesla and solve
>> their manufacturing issues. There is no good reason that an electric
>> vehicle with a 300 mile range should cost more than a gasoline powered
>> vehicle with the same range.
>
> Batteries are not cheap... and not sure what other innovation Apple could
> have added there. What is done poorly about modern cars? Keep in mind
> Apple is not about just adding tons of features... so would have to be
> common features done poorly.

Judging by the number of recalls in recent years, there are *a* *lot*
of things in modern cars done poorly. ;-)

[harry newton]

He who is Your Name said on Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:59:11 +1300:

> The Apple II was the first true, mass
> market, "personal computer" that *anybody* could use, rather than just
> electronics hobbyists with their soldering irons.

While it's interesting who has something "first", that's only interesting
from a history lesson standpoint.

It's like asking who invented the rocket.
From a history standpoint, it's interesting.
But what matters is who makes the best rockets today.

Hence, what matters for a mobile device outside of history brownie points
is who provides the best functionality to the users today.

For example, iOS had likely the first "modern" interface, about 10 years
ago, to a smartphone, but now that previously modern interface is decidedly
primitive because the launcher hasn't improved in functionality during
those 10 years.
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIf8O3gXgAAMELx.jpg>

Meanwhile, on Android, even my five-year old phone has 3 freely available
app launchers currently installed on it (the original TouchWiz, Google Now,
and Nova Free).

Here's my single desktop, set up for left-hand operation, with icons
ordered the way I want them ordered and named the way I want them named.
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/11/21/oled.jpg>

I can choose to use any app launcher at any time I want.
Each comes with its own set of special functionality.

Hence, for history brownie points, for the app launcher, iOS gets the
brownie points - but iOS loses big time on actual app-launcher
functionality.

Primitive app launcher = iOS
Modern app launcher = (Nova is just one of many)

The power alone in my three-year-old Nova Free app launcher puts the
primitive iOS launcher to shame on all iOS devices, including the iPhone X.

I only speak fact.

For example, without jailbreaking, anyone can order their desktop any way
they want, with or without a dock, with or without folders on the pane or
doc, any common shape for the icons they want (e.g., square, circle, etc.),
any size icon, any grid, any name for any icon whatsoever (changing system
icon names is trivial for example), duplicate icons, hiding icons, etc.

Q: What does an iOS user do for such desktop organization functionality?
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/11/21/oled.jpg>
A: They just give up.
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIf8O3gXgAAMELx.jpg>

--
iOS: It came out first, and stayed exactly there; it's primitive now.

[Piso Mojado]

Yeah, not much.

Old Henry F. dreamed up the assembly line and making interchangeable
parts. We don't rely on that too much today, eh?

And Old John Moses B. created the concept and design for semi and full
auto firearms that are still in widespread use today, The Colt 1911 .45
ACP, in use for over 100 years, is arguably the best pistol ever made-
and we owe our freedom in part to the genius in the design of his .30
and .50 caliber air and water cooled machine guns.

And ole Tommy E.? Oh, just trivial stuff like light bulbs, recorded
sound, etc., you know.

Not much innovation from these guys ;-)

--
The lion may be king of the jungle, but airdrop him into Antarctica and
he's just a penguin's bitch.
-- Capt. James Pickett, US Army

[Piso Mojado]

On 11/20/17 7:23 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>> rolled into one.
>
> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had Apple
> do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal computer,
> or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or tablet, but
> the inventors of those products were unable to get the design or
> marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that Apple
> invented all of those products.
>
>> Kinda sad though that Apple hasn't brought out anything really new
>> since Steve went on to the big server in the sky. Not sure how long
>> they can continue their market-dominating run without a new next big
>> thing.
>
> In the meantime they are making a lot of money with careful planned
> release of improved versions of existing products. You don't criticize
> Toyota or Honda because they don't come out with new product lines every
> year, but they improve their products every year (usually).
>

The reason Apple is where it is today is because of "Oh, and one more
thing."

Honda and Toyota build good cars with incremental improvements each
year, not industry-changing new products and ideas.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
sign...that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
- Jonathan Swift

[Wade Garrett]

And you're payin' for it all, baby...

--
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time or money
making it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:04:24 -0500, Piso Mojado

Do you read English, or is your comprehension impaired?
I specifically said that Jobs did not have their talents.

[Piso Mojado]

Did you not write: "He was no Edison, Ford nor Browning having invented
very little if anything."?

I you didn't, then the posting engine messed up your post and made it
look like you did. No need to be insulting in response though.

If you did post that, then you would actually be the one with the
impaired reading skill and/or compression.

In either case, there's still no need to be a butt-head and embarrass
yourself in a public forum ;-)

Happy Thanksgiving.....

--
Don’t pick a fight, but if you find yourself in one, I suggest you make
damn sure you win.
- John Wayne

[sms]

On 11/20/2017 9:59 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2017-11-21 00:23:29 +0000, sms said:
>> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>>> rolled into one.
>>
>> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
>> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
>> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had
>> Apple do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal
>> computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or
>> tablet, but the inventors of those products were unable to get the
>> design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that
>> Apple invented all of those products.
>
> Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
> horrible kitset piece of crap.

LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.

The Apple II was a much better idea, not requiring a separate terminal,
and offering floppy drives instead of other storage (cassette or paper
tape).

And don't forget that the Apple I was also a kit, but had the advantage
of having the terminal electronics included so you just had to add a
keyboard and monitor. Their initial advertisement made fun of the S100
bus machines of the time, with their need for a 28 amp power supply, and
separate terminal
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I#/media/File:Apple_1_Advertisement_Oct_1976.jpg>.

It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim that
Apple "invented" the personal computer.

[nospam]

In article <ov29if$vl7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >
> > Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
> > horrible kitset piece of crap.
>
> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.

only hobbyists bought them, and they did very, very little.

they were, as he calls it, a 'a horrible kitset piece of crap'.

> The Apple II was a much better idea, not requiring a separate terminal,
> and offering floppy drives instead of other storage (cassette or paper
> tape).

along with real world apps, which is why it was successful and others
not.

> And don't forget that the Apple I was also a kit, but had the advantage
> of having the terminal electronics included so you just had to add a
> keyboard and monitor. Their initial advertisement made fun of the S100
> bus machines of the time, with their need for a 28 amp power supply, and
> separate terminal
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I#/media/File:Apple_1_Advertisement_Oct_1
> 976.jpg>.

that simply set the stage for what was to follow.

> It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
> companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
> Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim that
> Apple "invented" the personal computer.

it's not a stretch at all. that's exactly what they did.

what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.

[Your Name]

On 2017-11-21 22:32:47 +0000, sms said:

> On 11/20/2017 9:59 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2017-11-21 00:23:29 +0000, sms said:
>>> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>>>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>>>> rolled into one.
>>>
>>> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
>>> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
>>> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had
>>> Apple do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal
>>> computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or
>>> tablet, but the inventors of those products were unable to get the
>>> design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that
>>> Apple invented all of those products.
>>
>> Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
>> horrible kitset piece of crap.
>
> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.

<snip>

The fact that you could buy them ready-assembled does alter the fact
that they were still kitset computers. You could also buy Apple I
computers ready-assembled.

If you want to get real nit-picky, then there were single-user
computers decades before the Apple I, etc. kitset computers.

But the first *real* "personal computer" was the Apple II. It was the
first one that normal people could simply plug in and use out of the
box.

[Savageduck]

On Nov 21, 2017, Your Name wrote
(in article <ov2f02$slp$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

A year before the Apple I there was this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800>

>
> But the first *real* "personal computer" was the Apple II. It was the
> first one that normal people could simply plug in and use out of the
> box.

Yup!

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:55:40 -0500, Piso Mojado

Yes, and you still don't understand.
It means he wasn't an inventor and did not have their talents. Your
response indicated that he didn't have the plethora of inventions that
they had, which was in agreement with my statement.

>
>I you didn't, then the posting engine messed up your post and made it
>look like you did. No need to be insulting in response though.
>
>If you did post that, then you would actually be the one with the
>impaired reading skill and/or compression.

Wrong.

>
>In either case, there's still no need to be a butt-head and embarrass
>yourself in a public forum ;-)

I didn't but you did. Twice.
>
>Happy Thanksgiving.....

[Pabst Blue Ribbon]

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

> Apple should buy Tesla and solve
> their manufacturing issues. There is no good reason that an electric
> vehicle with a 300 mile range should cost more than a gasoline powered
> vehicle with the same range.

That would be a huge mistake.

[Pabst Blue Ribbon]

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

>> It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
>> companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
>> Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim that
>> Apple "invented" the personal computer.
>
> it's not a stretch at all. that's exactly what they did.
>
> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.

I wouldn't say so. The idea was in the air; if Apple never existed we
probably still would use the same computers today as we do now. TRS-80 and
Commodore PET were released at the same time and they can be called a
"personal computers" just like Apple II. It's not like they stole design
from Apple.

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:43:01 -0700:

> Keep in mind you are the one who focuses on feelings pretty much non-stop.

Here are some facts for you if you want more facts.
<http://bgr.com/2017/11/21/iphone-x-review-speed-vs-oneplus-5t/>

The Android OnePlus 5T is much faster and literally about 1/2 the price of
the iPhone X.

Overall, the Android OnePlus 5T crushed the iPhone in *most* (actually,
almost all) of the different types of speed tests the guy above ran
(although the iPhone X was faster in some - but overall it was creamed by a
phone that cost half as much).

Even worse for the twice-as-expensive iPhone X is that the
half-as-expensive OnePlus 5T literally creamed the iPhone X in WiFi speeds,
(due to the primitive WiFi chip Apple put in the iPhone X).
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/11/22/speed.jpg>

More comparison specs here:
<https://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/OnePlus-5T,Apple-iPhone-X/phones/10695,10414>

MSRP: $559 vs $1149 (OnePlus 5T is *~half the price* of the iPhone X)
Camera: 16MP vs 12MP (OnePlus 5T has 133% greater pixels than the iPhone X)
Ram: 8GB vs 3GB (OnePlus 5T has 266% more RAM than the iPhone X)
Storage: 128GB vs 256GB (iPhone X has ~twice as much storage)
NanoSIM: 2 slots versus 1 slot (OnePlus 5T has 2, iPhone X has only 1)
Headphone: OnePlus 5T has the standard headphone jack (iPhone X does not)

Those are facts.

[Your Name]

Yep, but that's another kitset computer.

[Your Name]

The Commodore PET was announced before the Apple II, but you couldn't
actually get one until after the Apple II ... so that makes the Apple
II the first true "Personal Computer".

[Snit]

On 11/21/17, 10:52 PM, in article ov33a3$1j9h$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

Cool... thanks or sharing. Good to see Android devices pushing Apple.

[Pabst Blue Ribbon]

One more time: are others stole the design from Apple?

[Your Name]

Complete and utter nonsense.

Very few people had even heard of Apple before the Apple II, let alone
bothered to try and track down what they were working on. The already
estabdlished companies like Commodore certainly weren't going to bother
looking at a small fry hobbyist outfit.

[Lewis]

In message <5a1341f8$0$20664$b1db1813$4ef1...@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-11-20 15:53, Lewis wrote:

>> Utterly false. The iPad Pro, True Tone, Pro Motion, Apple Watch, FaceID,
>> AirPods, Apple Pencil, APFS, TouchBar, and many many more.

> FaceID may be new to Apple, but that is because they bought the company
> that did the similar hardware for the X Box Kinect.

FaceID fits in a mobile phone is secure and is super fast, unlike the
version on the Kinect.

> So Apple didn't "invent" the hardware and some of the core stuff, but it
> integrated and improved it to make FaceID.

You're being your usual FUDster troll idiot again.

--
I AM ZOMBOR! (kelly) ZOMBOR!

[Lewis]

In message <ov29if$vl7$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 9:59 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2017-11-21 00:23:29 +0000, sms said:
>>> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>>>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>>>> rolled into one.
>>>
>>> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
>>> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
>>> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had
>>> Apple do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal
>>> computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or
>>> tablet, but the inventors of those products were unable to get the
>>> design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that
>>> Apple invented all of those products.
>>
>> Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
>> horrible kitset piece of crap.

> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.

Those were hobbiest machines, not personal computers. What Apple did was
produce a machine that anyone could buy, take home, and start using
within minutes.

> but it's a real stretch to claim that Apple "invented" the personal
> computer.

Not at all.

--
Mom: There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus?
Daughter: Duh.

[Lewis]

In message <Ow7RB.53714$ow1....@fx03.iad> Pabst Blue Ribbon <pa...@blue.ribbon> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>> It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
>>> companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
>>> Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim that
>>> Apple "invented" the personal computer.
>>
>> it's not a stretch at all. that's exactly what they did.
>>
>> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.

> I wouldn't say so. The idea was in the air; if Apple never existed we
> probably still would use the same computers today as we do now.

Not a fucking chance.

--
'Do you know what they call a sausage-in-a-bun in Quirm?' 'No?' said Mr
Tulip 'They called it le sausage-in-le-bun.' 'What, in a --ing foreign
language? You're --ing kidding!'

[Zaidy036]

harry newton <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Why is the iPhone/iPad one of the most successful mobile device platforms
> in the market?
>
> Clearly Apple iOS iPhone & iPad platforms are overwhelmingly successful.
> But why?
>

> What are the main reasons millions of people, including some of my own
> relatives, *love* the Apple iOS platform?
>

Travel weight!! I started with carrying 20 pounds of equipment, reduced to
10 pounds over the years, and finally dropped to 3 pounds with an iPad.

If you use email and travel frequently the iPad reduced your load
significantly. Now we have light weight laptops but they still require,
including chargers, more weight to lug around.

--
Zaidy036

[Pabst Blue Ribbon]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <Ow7RB.53714$ow1....@fx03.iad> Pabst Blue Ribbon <pa...@blue.ribbon> wrote:
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
>>>> companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
>>>> Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim that
>>>> Apple "invented" the personal computer.
>>>
>>> it's not a stretch at all. that's exactly what they did.
>>>
>>> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.
>
>> I wouldn't say so. The idea was in the air; if Apple never existed we
>> probably still would use the same computers today as we do now.
>
> Not a fucking chance.
>

Why not? Other machines from 1977 were personal computers too, and they
were designed independently, without stealing Apple's "invention".

[Pabst Blue Ribbon]

Exactly my point.

[harry newton]

He who is Zaidy036 said on Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:41:24 -0000 (UTC):

> Travel weight!! I started with carrying 20 pounds of equipment, reduced to
> 10 pounds over the years, and finally dropped to 3 pounds with an iPad.

Tablets do that, but why the iOS tablet and not Android for your goal?
There is a reason you chose one over the other.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:43:53 -0500:

>> Well in my professional field, the iPad would not be usable for a lot of
>> stuff because we actually do need some applications that iOS does not
>> allow...
>
> such as what, exactly?

I realize you're asking sms that question in "his" field, but for me, the
two main app functionalities that iOS glaringly just doesn't allow are
a. Organization of the device
b. Utilities for radio waves

> has such an app been written and rejected?
> or are you mistakenly assuming it won't be allowed?

a. Organization apps on iOS are supremely lacking, as you are aware.

Organization is trivially easy on even an ancient Android device:
A. Organize icons on any desired grid whatsoever
B. Organize icons into any set of folders whatsoever
C. Organize icons with any descriptive name whatsoever
D. Organize icons for desktop use & for app drawer app seldom use
E. Organize the desktop with a dock or no dock or folders in the dock
F. etc.

b. Utilities for radio waves are supremely lacking, as you are aware.

Utilities for working with radio waves is easy on Android & lacking on iOS:
A. Viewing & recording WiFi signal strength over time for all visible APs
B. Viewing & recording *correct* cellular signal information over time
C. Automatically answering & recording phone calls
D. etc.

[nospam]

In article <ov4l84$dj1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> >> Well in my professional field, the iPad would not be usable for a lot of
> >> stuff because we actually do need some applications that iOS does not
> >> allow...
> >
> > such as what, exactly?
>
> I realize you're asking sms that question in "his" field,

then don't butt in.

> but for me, the
> two main app functionalities that iOS glaringly just doesn't allow are
> a. Organization of the device
> b. Utilities for radio waves

he was asking about medical apps, which are *plentiful* on ios, much
more so than android.

in fact, apple need not even be involved for any external hardware.
just use the standard btle characteristics and it "just works".

[Zaidy036]

iPad 1 on introduction - no Android then available and remained with iPads
and iPhones until now.

Win 7 desktop at home.

--
Zaidy036

[Your Name]

On 2017-11-23 00:55:29 +0000, Zaidy036 said:
>
<snip>

>
> Win 7 desktop at home.

You have our comisserations. ;-)

[David Taylor]

On 22/11/2017 20:04, harry newton wrote:
[]> Utilities for working with radio waves is easy on Android & lacking

on iOS:
> A. Viewing & recording WiFi signal strength over time for all visible APs
> B. Viewing & recording *correct* cellular signal information over time
> C. Automatically answering & recording phone calls
> D. etc.

Not only that, but the inability to access MAC addresses in the latest
version of iOS. Typical of the arbitrary changes forced on the users by
the "Apple knows best" mentality. Makes the Android version of FING,
for example, much more useful. Lack of full GPS status information on
iOS is another pain - I use my Android phone for that.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Zaidy036]

Not Win 10. Dual monitors and Quicken which is best on Win and not a Mac. I
also carry a cheap laptop, Win 10 unfortunately, to use Quicken while “on
the road”.

--
Zaidy036

[nospam]

In article <ov64fo$i3$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>
> Not only that, but the inability to access MAC addresses in the latest
> version of iOS. Typical of the arbitrary changes forced on the users by
> the "Apple knows best" mentality.

there's nothing arbitrary about it or anything else apple does. that
particular one was done for security reasons.

> Makes the Android version of FING,
> for example, much more useful. Lack of full GPS status information on
> iOS is another pain - I use my Android phone for that.

use the best tool for the job.

[Lewis]

In message <ov64fo$i3$1...@dont-email.me> David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/11/2017 20:04, harry newton wrote:
> []> Utilities for working with radio waves is easy on Android & lacking
> on iOS:
>> A. Viewing & recording WiFi signal strength over time for all visible APs
>> B. Viewing & recording *correct* cellular signal information over time
>> C. Automatically answering & recording phone calls
>> D. etc.

> Not only that, but the inability to access MAC addresses in the latest
> version of iOS. Typical of the arbitrary changes forced on the users by
> the "Apple knows best" mentality. Makes the Android version of FING,
> for example, much more useful.

And makes it trivial for apps to track you and share information between
apps and advertisers and malware authors and link it to your identity.

--
How soon after the USPS issues the Calvin stamp will you send a letter with one
on the envelope? Watterson: Immediately. I'm going to get in my horse and
buggy and snail-mail a check for my newspaper subscription.

[David Taylor]

On 23/11/2017 17:15, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ov64fo$i3$1...@dont-email.me> David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

[]>> Not only that, but the inability to access MAC addresses in the latest

>> version of iOS. Typical of the arbitrary changes forced on the users by
>> the "Apple knows best" mentality. Makes the Android version of FING,
>> for example, much more useful.
>
> And makes it trivial for apps to track you and share information between
> apps and advertisers and malware authors and link it to your identity.

So? They'll do that anyway!

[nospam]

In article <ov7295$jje$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> >> Not only that, but the inability to access MAC addresses in the latest
> >> version of iOS. Typical of the arbitrary changes forced on the users by
> >> the "Apple knows best" mentality. Makes the Android version of FING,
> >> for example, much more useful.
> >
> > And makes it trivial for apps to track you and share information between
> > apps and advertisers and malware authors and link it to your identity.
>
> So? They'll do that anyway!

it's a helluva lot harder if apps can't get identifying information.

[harry newton]

He who is Zaidy036 said on Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:27:46 -0000 (UTC):

> Not Win 10. Dual monitors and Quicken which is best on Win and not a Mac. I

> also carry a cheap laptop, Win 10 unfortunately, to use Quicken while +IBw-on
> the road+IB0-.

I have both Android and iOS tablets, and they're about the same in size and
weight.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 23 Nov 2017 13:19:50 -0500:

> it's a helluva lot harder if apps can't get identifying information.

On Android you don't even *need* a Google account to do everything you want
to do do, and you can *delete* all the Google advertiser ID crap, and turn
off app access, after the fact, to anything any specific app requests that
you know about.

Google Cell ID capturing aside (because they should get sued for that and
they removed it from the code this week), the fact that you cannot remove
the advertising id on Apple iOS devices is a *big* negative.

I know the iOS morons like Lewis will *never* understand what I'm saying,
and I know you're clever enough to contort what I'm saying - but I know you
*understand* that on Android, removing identifying information is a *lot*
easier than on iOS.

It's easy on Android - but it's involved since the identifying information
is splashed all over the place - but at least you *can* remove it (and I've
proved it many times that I have).

On iOS, you just can't.

--
Not only is iOS limited, but it's primitive (stuck in a decade-old design).

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:51:42 -0500:

>> Makes the Android version of FING,
>> for example, much more useful. Lack of full GPS status information on
>> iOS is another pain - I use my Android phone for that.
>
> use the best tool for the job.

Again, you contort facts.

Since it's a fact that there is no app functionality on iOS that isn't on
Android, iOS will *never* be the "best tool" for the job.

The only time iOS works well is when you're completely inside the walled
garden.

It's a fact iOS isn't even *tested* outside the walled garden.

[harry newton]

He who is Lewis said on Thu, 23 Nov 2017 17:15:26 -0000 (UTC):

> And makes it trivial for apps to track you and share information between
> apps and advertisers and malware authors and link it to your identity.

The iOS user loves to *feel* safe, even though nobody is safe on any
consumer grade mobile device.

The iOS user doesn't want to think about safety.

They want Apple do to their thinking for them.

Which, as we all know, in the case of Lewis, is probably a good thing for
him.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:35:26 -0500:

> in fact, apple need not even be involved for any external hardware.
> just use the standard btle characteristics and it "just works".

These two phrases *always* go together on all Apple devices:
"it just works" <===> "just give up"

You contort things again, because the Apple "just works" (inside the walled
garden) always comes with the asterisked "just give up" when it doesn't
work at all (in the real world).

By that, I mean we all know that *inside* the walled garden, it "just
works", but the moment you step outside the walled garden, the user is
forced to "just give up".

If you wish to challenge that well-known fact, I'll provide example after
example, since you *know* that to be the case, even though you have the
James Comey trial-lawyer mentality which only works on the iOS gullibles.

--
iOS: Just works only inside the walled garden (untested in the real world).

[nospam]

In article <ov7980$12oj$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> On Android you don't even *need* a Google account to do everything you want
> to do do, and you can *delete* all the Google advertiser ID crap, and turn
> off app access, after the fact, to anything any specific app requests that
> you know about.

not only does that remove a shitload of functionality, but google and
apps still track you anyway.

[Your Name]

Windoze is Windoze ... they're *ALL* just buggy, malware-infested,
half-assed knock-offs of Mac OS. :-p

[nospam]

In article <ov7982$12oj$5...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> > in fact, apple need not even be involved for any external hardware.
> > just use the standard btle characteristics and it "just works".
>
> These two phrases *always* go together on all Apple devices:
> "it just works" <===> "just give up"
>
> You contort things again, because the Apple "just works" (inside the walled
> garden) always comes with the asterisked "just give up" when it doesn't
> work at all (in the real world).

nothing is contorted, other than your view of reality.

choose a health sensor that uses industry standard btle characteristics
and it will 'just work' on ios, without needing to write a custom app.
support is already built in. it does not need to have apple approval.
even a home built device using an arduino board and a btle shield will
'just work'.

> By that, I mean we all know that *inside* the walled garden, it "just
> works", but the moment you step outside the walled garden, the user is
> forced to "just give up".

the only person who gives up is you.

[Snit]

On 11/23/17, 1:13 PM, in article 231120171513017364%nos...@nospam.invalid,

He is the most emotional person I have seen in any tech group.

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

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[Lewis]

No, they won't. iOS has very strict sandboxing and prevents apps from
getting any information that can be directly tied to the device. This is
why so many apps now are rquiring a farcebook login, so that farcebook
can do their tracking because Apple keeps blocking their efforts.

--
people didn't seem to be able to remember what it was like with the
elves around. Life was certainly more interesting then, but usually
because it was shorter. And it was more colourful, if you liked the
colour of blood. --Lords and Ladies

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:13:01 -0500:

> the only person who gives up is you.

C'mon nospam.
That tired old line of yours only works on the iOS gullibes.

I can name a hundred functional things Android apps do that iOS apps just
don't do.

Do you really want to challenge me?

Remember, unlike you iOS apologists ... I only speak facts.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:02:39 -0500:

> not only does that remove a shitload of functionality, but google and
> apps still track you anyway.

We proved long ago that you just flip a coin on *everything* you say, where
I already proved the advertising id was long gone. It doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, on iOS, you're stuck with it.

[Snit]

On 11/24/17, 10:57 PM, in article ovb0nf$1kca$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry

How about this simple task:

The videos YOU linked to showing how poorly Android handles even the first
line of that:

<https://youtu.be/cywLOctCrCs>
<https://youtu.be/bYDvgoYSVSU>
<https://youtu.be/G0sKTWfHHnk>
<https://youtu.be/TfvtREsCQDY>

Those videos claim Android handles the task so poorly that to even get the
first line requires extra hardware. You even claimed the list "goes on
forever". Wow... Android is far worse at this than I thought!

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:16:37 -0700:

> The videos YOU linked to showing how poorly Android handles even the first
> line of that:

Everything you write shows that you, Snit, are so incomprehensibly stupid
that you actually make the other imbecile iOS apologists like Jolly Roger
and Lewis look good by way of comparison.

No wonder you literally beg people, in your sig, not to realize
you're an utter imbecile.

--
Snit is an incomprehensibly stupid iOS apologist who can't fathom that
Android has had native screen recording with audio for *years*!

[Snit]

On 11/25/17, 12:33 AM, in article ovb6bm$k4$1...@gioia.aioe.org, "harry newton"

<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> He who is Snit said on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 23:16:37 -0700:
>
>> The videos YOU linked to showing how poorly Android handles even the first
>> line of that:
>
> Everything you write shows that you, Snit, are so incomprehensibly stupid
> that you actually make the other imbecile iOS apologists like Jolly Roger
> and Lewis look good by way of comparison.
>
> No wonder you literally beg people, in your sig, not to realize
> you're an utter imbecile.

Your tantrum continues... but thanks for going out of your way to show how
poorly Android handles a task that is simple on iOS:

* Record screen AND voice AND device sounds without jail breaking.
Also record desktop screen and sound with the time coordinated.

The videos YOU linked to showing how poorly Android handles even the first
line of that:

<https://youtu.be/cywLOctCrCs>
<https://youtu.be/bYDvgoYSVSU>
<https://youtu.be/G0sKTWfHHnk>
<https://youtu.be/TfvtREsCQDY>

Those videos claim Android handles the task so poorly that to even get the
first line requires extra hardware. You even claimed the list "goes on
forever". Wow... Android is far worse at this than I thought!

And now that you get that you are having a toddler tantrum. Which I am
feeding. :)

[sms]

On 11/22/2017 1:54 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <ov29if$vl7$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2017 9:59 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-21 00:23:29 +0000, sms said:
>>>> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>>>>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>>>>> rolled into one.
>>>>
>>>> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
>>>> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
>>>> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had
>>>> Apple do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal
>>>> computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or
>>>> tablet, but the inventors of those products were unable to get the
>>>> design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that
>>>> Apple invented all of those products.
>>>
>>> Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
>>> horrible kitset piece of crap.
>
>> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
>> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.
>
> Those were hobbiest machines, not personal computers. What Apple did was
> produce a machine that anyone could buy, take home, and start using
> within minutes.

The assembled S100 bus machines were already being used by home (and
small business) users before the Apple II was on the market. But you had
to plug in an RS-232 terminal. You often see these early PCs paired with
a Lear Siegler ADM3 dumb terminal
<http://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/ComputerCreators/Altair/edroberts2.jpg>.
This added considerably to the expense since a terminal would cost at
least $700 more.

Later there were S100 video boards which had the same function as the
terminal electronics built into the Apple motherboard.

[sms]

On 11/20/2017 5:33 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:50:43 -0500, Piso Mojado
> <cons...@trapeador.net> wrote:
>
> <clip>
>>> What are the main reasons millions of people, including some of my own
>>> relatives, *love* the Apple iOS platform?

>>
>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>> rolled into one.
>

> He was no Edison, Ford nor Browning having invented very little if
> anything.

And Ford didn't invent the automobile just like Apple didn't invent the
computer. He made it accessible to the masses. And that was as big an
accomplishment as putting a bunch of parts together.

[nospam]

In article <ovfa5s$hid$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >
> >> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
> >> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.
> >
> > Those were hobbiest machines, not personal computers. What Apple did was
> > produce a machine that anyone could buy, take home, and start using
> > within minutes.
>
> The assembled S100 bus machines were already being used by home (and
> small business) users before the Apple II was on the market.

very, very few were. almost none, in fact.

> But you had
> to plug in an RS-232 terminal. You often see these early PCs paired with
> a Lear Siegler ADM3 dumb terminal

which generally were connected to mainframes.

[Your Name]

On 2017-11-26 21:02:50 +0000, sms said:

> On 11/22/2017 1:54 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <ov29if$vl7$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2017 9:59 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> On 2017-11-21 00:23:29 +0000, sms said:
>>>>> On 11/20/2017 9:50 AM, Piso Mojado wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably because Steve was a true visionary genius who conceived then
>>>>>> and brought them to market. Better than Edison, Ford and Browning all
>>>>>> rolled into one.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was amazing about Steve Jobs is that he could look at how other
>>>>> companies totally screwed up the design and marketing of consumer
>>>>> product lines that had great potential if done right, and then had
>>>>> Apple do those products right. Apple didn't have the first personal
>>>>> computer, or GUI, or mouse, or digital music player or smart phone, or
>>>>> tablet, but the inventors of those products were unable to get the
>>>>> design or marketing right. I suspect that a lot of people believe that
>>>>> Apple invented all of those products.
>>>>
>>>> Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
>>>> horrible kitset piece of crap.
>>
>>> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
>>> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.
>>

>> Those were hobbyist machines, not personal computers. What Apple did was

>> produce a machine that anyone could buy, take home, and start using
>> within minutes.
>
> The assembled S100 bus machines were already being used by home (and
> small business) users before the Apple II was on the market. But you
> had to plug in an RS-232 terminal. You often see these early PCs paired
> with a Lear Siegler ADM3 dumb terminal
> <http://www.i-programmer.info/images/stories/ComputerCreators/Altair/edroberts2.jpg>.
> This added considerably to the expense since a terminal would cost at
> least $700 more.
>
> Later there were S100 video boards which had the same function as the
> terminal electronics built into the Apple motherboard.

"buy them in a kit" = hobbyist computer.

[Erilar]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ouvi9o$fq6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2017 5:34 AM, harry newton wrote:
> ...
>
>> You complain constantly about what iOS devices can't do. And it's true,
>> that Android devices do have a lot more capability,
>
> nothing does everything. android does some things ios can't and ios
> does some things android can't.
>
>> and if you need to
>> do those types of things, like industrial, scientific, medical,
>> applications then iOS devices are probably not a good fit for you.
>
> nonsense. ios is a *much* better choice for all of those, particularly
> medical.
>

Laptops also do things iPads don't and vice versa. Bigger computers do even
more. And iPhones take up less pocket room. So?

--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad

[Erilar]

My first computer experience was at UMinn in 1974 or so, working with a
language drill program. We had 3 CRT terminals and a couple teletypes that
had to be connected by calling up the main computer and putting the phone
in a cradle. Guess which the students and I preferred? Anyway, some years
later, I was using an Apple //e and REALLY appreciated it! Some of us
remember how far we've come.

[nospam]

In article <ovl2hu$c3s$1...@dont-email.me>, Erilar

<dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> Laptops also do things iPads don't and vice versa. Bigger computers do even
> more. And iPhones take up less pocket room. So?

yep.

pick the best tool for the job.

[harry newton]

He who is Snit said on Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:15:20 -0700:

> * Record screen AND voice AND device sounds without jail breaking.

This is the 186th time you've endlessly trolled your iOS apologist
fabrication.

With every post you prove it is unilaterally *always* the Apple Apologists
who cause these endless threads to go nowhere.

All anyone needs to do is state a fact about Apple that you don't like.
The result is that you'll *always* troll them to death.

You can't help yourself, since you're an iOS apologist.

[Snit]

The videos YOU linked to showing how poorly Android handles even part of the
stated task poorly:

<https://youtu.be/cywLOctCrCs>
<https://youtu.be/bYDvgoYSVSU>
<https://youtu.be/G0sKTWfHHnk>
<https://youtu.be/TfvtREsCQDY>

Those videos claim Android handles the task so poorly that to even get the
first line requires extra hardware. You even claimed the list "goes on

forever". Wow... YOU showed Android is far worse at this than I thought!

And now that you get that you are having a very emotional toddler tantrum.

[Erilar]

Exactly! But so many posters on these threads don't seem to accept this!

[Jolly Roger]

Honestly, what did you expect?

The thread was *started* by a resident Apple-hating nym-switching troll
currently known as harry newton <ha...@is.invalid>.

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

JR

[harry newton]

He who is Jolly Roger said on 8 Dec 2017 00:56:10 GMT:

> Honestly, what did you expect?

Title: "I've had the iPhone 6S Plus for two years, and I'm so happy I
didn't upgrade to the iPhone 7, 8, or X"
<http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-x-iphone-8-and-iphone-7-vs-iphone-6s-why-upgrading-isnt-worth-it-2017-12/#the-iphone-6s-still-looks-like-the-iphone-7-and-iphone-8-1>

What's interesting about iOS users is that they care about what seems to me
to be absolutely the wrong things in a mobile device.

Look at this typical article, published within the last hour:

The author says he's a long-time iOS user (which is believable since he
seems to care about the wrong things for a mobile device).

1. He starts off well by instantly saying "faster processors and better
cameras with dual lenses" are "two features are arguably the main reasons
someone should upgrade to a new smartphone".

That's kind of funny though, given I just bought a handful of $130
smartphones as stocking stuffers which have dual lenses, both with flash,
and yet - the octacore CPU speed isn't permanently halved in a year by an
iOS update.

Since Apple has already stated they will permanently halve in the future
the CPU speeds of all phones they sell whenever they want to, you have to
average out the speed to something like half of what is claimed (or you can
buy a new battery every year).

But this typical iOS review, which started well, goes downhill from there.

2. Then the typical iOS user puts as the number two issue, "looks" (as if
that matters in a smart phone). He says:
"The iPhone 6S looks nearly identical to the iPhone 7"
Huh? He says they look the same, so why bother upgrading?
This is how iOS users actually think?

3. Then he goes on (and on) about colors! (ummm... colors? Really?).
He talks about the iPhone 7 jet black and matte black option (ummmm ...
what's the freaking difference when it's meaningless anyway?). Then he goes
on about if he were to get a new iPhone, it would be white or silver. And
then he extols the virtue of the iPhone 8 "new gold" color, which he thinks
looks more like "rose gold" - but he concludes "I'd still get the silver
model".

4. But there's more to this typical iOS phone decision. His photo caption
says "The only color that would tempt me to upgrade is beige!".

5. Finally this typical iOS user gets down to "technical facts", where he
says the iPhone X (at $1000!) is the "best looking smartphone" you can buy,
where he literally says his buying decision for a $1000 phone is based
purely on looks!
"I have to admit, its design alone has tempted me away from my iPhone 6S
Plus!".

Holy shit!
This is what typical iOS users' brains sound like even when not on drugs!

There's more. But this single peek into the typical iOS users' mind will
explain a lot about why iOS users on this newsgroup make no sense.

iOS users are just not like normal adults who make normal buying decisions.
They're just not.

They care more about "colors" than anything else.

Heh heh ... the handful of $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus phones I just bought as
stockign stuffers (which have plenty of better hardware specs than the
iPhone 7 Plus does) only comes in one "color" ... whatever that color is.

If you want colors, pay five times the price - where you get a choice of
five colors for your hard earned money!

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-31, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is Jolly Roger said on 8 Dec 2017 00:56:10 GMT:
>
>> Honestly, what did you expect?
>

> What's interesting about iOS users

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

[Alan Browne]

On 2017-11-21 17:55, nospam wrote:
> In article <ov29if$vl7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Apple did invent the "personal computer" ... at least one that wasn't a
>>> horrible kitset piece of crap.
>>
>> LOL, there were S100 bus based computers, running Basic, prior to the
>> Apple II. You could buy them in a kit or assembled.
>

> only hobbyists bought them, and they did very, very little.
>
> they were, as he calls it, a 'a horrible kitset piece of crap'.
>
>> The Apple II was a much better idea, not requiring a separate terminal,
>> and offering floppy drives instead of other storage (cassette or paper
>> tape).
>
> along with real world apps, which is why it was successful and others
> not.
>
>> And don't forget that the Apple I was also a kit, but had the advantage
>> of having the terminal electronics included so you just had to add a
>> keyboard and monitor. Their initial advertisement made fun of the S100
>> bus machines of the time, with their need for a 28 amp power supply, and
>> separate terminal
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I#/media/File:Apple_1_Advertisement_Oct_1
>> 976.jpg>.
>
> that simply set the stage for what was to follow.
>
>> It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
>> companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
>> Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim that
>> Apple "invented" the personal computer.
>
> it's not a stretch at all. that's exactly what they did.

Hardly.

> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.

Nothing more personal than that.

--
“When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million
full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102
million non-workers and 21 million government workers.
In what world does this represent a strong job market?”
.Jim Quinn

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-20, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2017-11-21 17:55, nospam wrote:
>> In article <ov29if$vl7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's fair to see that Jobs saw how bad the personal computers from
>>> companies like Cromemco were, and improved greatly on the design.
>>> Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a real stretch to claim
>>> that Apple "invented" the personal computer.
>>
>> it's not a stretch at all. that's exactly what they did.
>
> Hardly.

Hardly anyone can legitimately argue that typical home computers weren't
nearly as personal as a Mac when Macs were first introduced. All other
computers were running DOS operating systems on monochrome inverted
displays at the time. In many ways, Apple did indeed reinvent the
personal computer with the Mac.

>> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.
>
> Nothing more personal than that.

Still just a hunk of metal running DOS in comparison. There's nothing
more personal than a computer that is so intuitive to use you get joy
out of using it productively. That's what the Mac brought to the masses.

[nospam]

In article <pMqdnaj2UKI9Vf7H...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

the industry disagrees with you.

> > what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.
>
> Nothing more personal than that.

odd definition, but regardless those were not anything that was
marketable.

normal people aren't interested in putting together a box of parts and
then write their own apps, some of which needed to be toggled in via
the front panel.

and that thread was from two months ago.

[nospam]

In article <fci2ls...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>
> >> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.
> >
> > Nothing more personal than that.
>
> Still just a hunk of metal running DOS in comparison. There's nothing
> more personal than a computer that is so intuitive to use you get joy
> out of using it productively. That's what the Mac brought to the masses.

personal computers existed well before dos and the mac.

although the altair 8800 did precede the apple i and ii, it was *not*
anything a normal person would want, let alone be able to use.

<http://oldcomputers.net/altair-8800.html>
Since no keyboard or monitor was cheaply available, users initially
had to flip switches on the front panel, writing their own programs
in machine language, and watching the LEDs on the front panel light
up in response to their commands.

on the other hand, they're worth a fair amount these days, although
nowhere near as much as an apple i.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-20 19:32, nospam wrote:

> personal computers existed well before dos and the mac.

Semantics. Hobbyist computer vs personal computer.

Apple II and the Commodore PET truly opened the "personal computer"
(designed to be used by more than just electronics hobbyists).

There were others at that time that were sold "fully assembled" and
"self contained" , but did not break through in terms of marketing and
pricing.

[nospam]

In article <OsR8C.76241$3U1....@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > personal computers existed well before dos and the mac.
>
> Semantics. Hobbyist computer vs personal computer.

it's more than just semantics.

> Apple II and the Commodore PET truly opened the "personal computer"
> (designed to be used by more than just electronics hobbyists).

that's the point. what came before that were for hobbyists, who liked
to assemble kits and make things blink.

> There were others at that time that were sold "fully assembled" and
> "self contained" , but did not break through in terms of marketing and
> pricing.

that too.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-21, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fci2ls...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>> what existed before were 'hobbyist computers'.
>>>
>>> Nothing more personal than that.
>>
>> Still just a hunk of metal running DOS in comparison. There's nothing
>> more personal than a computer that is so intuitive to use you get joy
>> out of using it productively. That's what the Mac brought to the masses.
>
> personal computers existed well before dos and the mac.

Sure. My point is DOS PCs were among the most popular home computers
when the Mac was introduced to the market.

[Lewis]

In message <OsR8C.76241$3U1....@fx36.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-01-20 19:32, nospam wrote:

>> personal computers existed well before dos and the mac.

> Semantics. Hobbyist computer vs personal computer.

No, those are entirely different things.

> There were others at that time that were sold "fully assembled" and
> "self contained" , but did not break through in terms of marketing and
> pricing.

Or utility.

--
Worlds of belief, she [Susan] thought. Just like oysters. A little piece
of shit gets in and then a pearl grows around it. --Hogfather