Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Why Are the Chinese Brand Phones (Huawei, Honor, Oppo, Xiaomi) Crushing the Competition in Camera Quality
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen Holder
May 16, 2020, 10:17:34 PM5/16/20
to
On Fri, 15 May 2020 09:29:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> And how do you know it's reliable?
Alan,
It's clear to adults you _hate_ Apple phones aren't even in the top ten.
o As a result of your hatred of Apple products, you fabricate excuses.
You don't even realize _why_ you are so _desperate_ to fabricate excuses
o When it's simply that you _hate_ Apple iPhones fare so poorly
There's no question that Apple isn't even in the top ten, Alan.
o You apologists are _desperate_ to deflect that simple factual truth.
You apologists _hate_ reliable sites your vaunted Apple camera QOR isn't
even in the top ten in the _best_ site on the planet for overall smartphone
camera QOR testing, bar none.
You apologists are _desperate_ to make inane _excuses_ for why Apple phones
aren't even in the top ten of camera QOR, where at least the OP, Steve
Scharf, is asking why is it that it's mostly the Chinese branded
smartphones (which is a valid question).
While your claims simply show how fantastically ignorant you are,
o What's hilarious, actually, is nospam's _excuse_ for Apple products.
The nospam apologist claims Apple doesn't have enough money to bribe the
testers to put the iPhone in the top ten in QOR.
And yet, this simple question is one _all_ you apologists instantly fail:
o Name a single _better_ camera-testing site that tests most smartphones
using a scientific approach, and which ranks the detailed scores.
Name just one.
--
Two traits of apologists shine in their hatred of Apple phones' lack of
camera QOR. (1) They despise reliable testing sites, and (2) they fabricate
the most inane excuses for why Apple iPhones aren't even in the top ten.
> And how do you know it's reliable?
Alan,
It's clear to adults you _hate_ Apple phones aren't even in the top ten.
o As a result of your hatred of Apple products, you fabricate excuses.
You don't even realize _why_ you are so _desperate_ to fabricate excuses
o When it's simply that you _hate_ Apple iPhones fare so poorly
There's no question that Apple isn't even in the top ten, Alan.
o You apologists are _desperate_ to deflect that simple factual truth.
You apologists _hate_ reliable sites your vaunted Apple camera QOR isn't
even in the top ten in the _best_ site on the planet for overall smartphone
camera QOR testing, bar none.
You apologists are _desperate_ to make inane _excuses_ for why Apple phones
aren't even in the top ten of camera QOR, where at least the OP, Steve
Scharf, is asking why is it that it's mostly the Chinese branded
smartphones (which is a valid question).
While your claims simply show how fantastically ignorant you are,
o What's hilarious, actually, is nospam's _excuse_ for Apple products.
The nospam apologist claims Apple doesn't have enough money to bribe the
testers to put the iPhone in the top ten in QOR.
And yet, this simple question is one _all_ you apologists instantly fail:
o Name a single _better_ camera-testing site that tests most smartphones
using a scientific approach, and which ranks the detailed scores.
Name just one.
--
Two traits of apologists shine in their hatred of Apple phones' lack of
camera QOR. (1) They despise reliable testing sites, and (2) they fabricate
the most inane excuses for why Apple iPhones aren't even in the top ten.
Alan Baker
May 16, 2020, 11:22:46 PM5/16/20
to
On 2020-05-16 7:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 09:29:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And how do you know it's reliable?
>
> Alan,
>
> It's clear to adults you _hate_ Apple phones aren't even in the top ten.
> o As a result of your hatred of Apple products, you fabricate excuses.
It's clear you didn't answer my question.
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 09:29:34 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And how do you know it's reliable?
>
> Alan,
>
> It's clear to adults you _hate_ Apple phones aren't even in the top ten.
> o As a result of your hatred of Apple products, you fabricate excuses.
Libor Striz
May 17, 2020, 12:51:31 AM5/17/20
to
Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> Wrote in message:
> Alan,It's clear to adults you _hate_ Apple phones aren't even in the top ten.
> As a result of your hatred of Apple products, you fabricate excuses.You don't even realize _why_ you are so _desperate_ to fabricate excuses.......
Well, Arlen, you call for it, routinely posting simultaneously
to both Android and iPhone Usenet groups.
It is, intentional or ( I believe ) not, heaping up of flammable
stuff for flame wars.
It is like if you were posting political commentaries simultaneously
to both Republican and Democratic party groups.
Some of responses would express hatred for each other and whatever
they do,
and even toward yourself, mixing them together.
--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )
> Alan,It's clear to adults you _hate_ Apple phones aren't even in the top ten.
> As a result of your hatred of Apple products, you fabricate excuses.You don't even realize _why_ you are so _desperate_ to fabricate excuses.......
Well, Arlen, you call for it, routinely posting simultaneously
to both Android and iPhone Usenet groups.
It is, intentional or ( I believe ) not, heaping up of flammable
stuff for flame wars.
It is like if you were posting political commentaries simultaneously
to both Republican and Democratic party groups.
Some of responses would express hatred for each other and whatever
they do,
and even toward yourself, mixing them together.
--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )
Arlen Holder
May 17, 2020, 2:42:08 AM5/17/20
to
On Sun, 17 May 2020 06:51:26 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
> It is like if you were posting political commentaries simultaneously
> to both Republican and Democratic party groups.
The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> It is like if you were posting political commentaries simultaneously
> to both Republican and Democratic party groups.
o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
For example, "Apple" isn't even on the list of top ten
(and yes, we all know they're manufactured in part or whole in China).
o But they're not necessarily _designed_ in China.
Does anyone have an erudite answer to Steve's question?
--
The apologists love to knock a thread off track simply because they _hate_
that Apple products aren't as good as the marketing brochures claimed.
Alan Baker
May 17, 2020, 2:45:19 AM5/17/20
to
On 2020-05-16 11:42 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 06:51:26 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>
>> It is like if you were posting political commentaries simultaneously
>> to both Republican and Democratic party groups.
>
> The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
And I told you:
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 06:51:26 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>
>> It is like if you were posting political commentaries simultaneously
>> to both Republican and Democratic party groups.
>
> The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
longer interval from their release than other phones.
>
> For example, "Apple" isn't even on the list of top ten
> (and yes, we all know they're manufactured in part or whole in China).
> o But they're not necessarily _designed_ in China.
>
> Does anyone have an erudite answer to Steve's question?
>
Libor Striz
May 17, 2020, 3:07:01 AM5/17/20
to
> The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.....
Considering what you have quoted and how you have replied,
you did not get it.
You have then to unnecessarily deal with reactions of others.
Your choice.
Considering what you have quoted and how you have replied,
you did not get it.
You have then to unnecessarily deal with reactions of others.
Your choice.
nospam
May 17, 2020, 8:00:58 AM5/17/20
to
In article <r9qmhs$rmr$2...@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker
fees.
google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
highest ever'. money talks.
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> >
> > The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> > o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
>
> And I told you:
>
> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> longer interval from their release than other phones.
the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
> >
> > The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> > o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
>
> And I told you:
>
> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> longer interval from their release than other phones.
fees.
google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
highest ever'. money talks.
Arlen Holder
May 17, 2020, 11:15:33 AM5/17/20
to
On Sun, 17 May 2020 08:00:53 -0400, nospam wrote:
> the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
> fees.
Normally you claim that Apple marketing brochures do a better job at iPhone
> the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
> fees.
testing than do the reliable testing sites such as DXOMark clearly is.
Now you're simply claiming Apple is too poor to bribe reliable testers.
You apologists are _desperate_ to fabricate any excuse for the facts.
o nospam: *Apple didn't _bribe_ those greedy yet reliable testers!*
o Baker: *Those stupid yet reliable testers _forgot_ the iPhone exists!*
Poor Apple doesn't have enough money to bribe DXOMark while the following
(all of whom are in the top ten today) have money to bribe DXOMark.
o Hauwei
o Honor
o Oppo
o Xiami
o Samsung
And yet, the facts remain... (since we keep abreast of facts):
o Rarely are iPhones _ever_ long in the top ten of smartphone camera QOR
--
Apologists hate Apple products don't test as well as they show up in the
glossy marketing brochures (which is all that the apologists believe in).
Arlen Holder
May 17, 2020, 11:15:33 AM5/17/20
to
On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> longer interval from their release than other phones.
Alan,
> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> longer interval from their release than other phones.
How many iPhones has Apple ever made?
o And how many are on the tested list at this very moment?
HINT: Almost all of them.
You seem to be making the famous claim that the next phone will be the
killer even though _all_ the prior phones aren't even on the top ten.
It's classic for you apologists to simply fabricate your excuses for Apple.
What your response proves is you're _desperate_ to fabricate an excuse for
why _every_ iPhone that _was_ already tested (and that's literally almost
every iPhone ever made!), isn't even on the top ten.
What's interesting is how _desperate_ you apologists are to claim that
Apple MARKETING brochures are the gospel and that every tester on the
planet is being _bribed_ by everyone but Apple (according to nospam)...
Why else are iPhones almost never even in the top list of camera QOR?
o It must be a conspiracy because MARKETING brochures are so very pretty.
How could an Apple MARKETING brochure possibly not be right!
o nospam: It must be that Apple didn't _bribe_ the reliable testers
o Baker: It must be that the reliable testers _forgot_ Apple existed
What you and nospam prove is you're _desperate_ to claim that the Apple
MARKETING brochures are what's accurate - and not reliable testing sites.
--
Apologists hate Apple products rarely come out on top in reliable tests.
(Because apologists believe only what they read in glossy brochures.)
Arlen Holder
May 17, 2020, 3:42:16 PM5/17/20
to
On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> And I told you:
>
> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> longer interval from their release than other phones.
Alan,
>
> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> longer interval from their release than other phones.
You're the only one on this planet who doesn't realize these simple facts:
o Which is likely why you & nospam are so desperate to deflect the subject.
1. *Apple phones _are_ on the DXOMark list; they just aren't on the top ten!*
2. *Virtually all Apple phones are tested; they just not in the top ten!*
It's not that DXOMark doesn't test the iPhones; it's that the iPhones score
so low that you don't _see_ any iPhone in the top ten (currently).
You can't see they're in the list; they're just not in the top ten slots.
o The top ten slots, to the point of this thread, are mostly Chinese.
Again, you apologists apparently _hate_ the glossy brochures make out Apple
camera QOR to be far better than any reliable testers can verify in fact.
Maybe you apologists should stop believing only what's in the brochures?
--
Apologists are shocked that the brochures didn't tell them the truth.
RichA
May 17, 2020, 11:02:47 PM5/17/20
to
Eric Stevens
May 18, 2020, 5:08:21 AM5/18/20
to
On Sun, 17 May 2020 20:02:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Do you really believe nospam?
He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
support it.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
support it.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Arlen Holder
May 18, 2020, 5:39:39 AM5/18/20
to
On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
>>> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
>>> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
>>> highest ever'. money talks.
>>
>>Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>
> Do you really believe nospam?
>
> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
> support it.
Regarding this astute comment moments ago from Eric Stevens:
>>> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
>>> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
>>> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
>>> highest ever'. money talks.
>>
>>Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>
> Do you really believe nospam?
>
> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
> support it.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/C9L8UzRuPjE/5FfN2qiDAQAJ>
I've studied the strange brains of these Apple apologists for years.
o People like nospam have no adult defense to facts.
It's easy to figure out how nospam will react to _any_ fact about Apple
o Years before the fact even occurs.
Essentially, assume nospam works for Apple MARKETING...
o And assume nospam doesn't believe a single word he says himself.
Then, assume Apple MARKETING wouldn't like whatever "fact" it is.
o Now, you can guess what nospam will say, well ahead of time.
1. First, nospam will flatly deny the fact is a fact
(e.g., he denies that the DXOMark reviews are valid)
2. If he can't flatly deny it, he will blame everyone but Apple
(e.g., when he blames Google for "bribing" DXO Mark)
3. If he can't deny it or blame someone else, he will deflect it
(e.g., he'll go down some path that has nothing to do with the fact)
This technique works perfectly for nospam on all the Apple newsgroups
o I assess that's simply because those are particularly immune to facts.
However, on _adult_ ngs, like the Linux or Android ngs,
o This technique fails more often than not for nospam
Worse, when he runs into intelligent people who can comprehend facts
o Then nospam has absolutely no defense other than to change the facts
Literally, nospam will _edit_ someone else's quoted text
o Just so that he can THEN _respond_ to that (now edited) quoted text!
Don't believe me?
o Here are _multiple_ threads showing proof of exactly that!
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children
in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>
Every time nospam runs across facts where the technique above fails him
o He then resorts to _changing_ the facts, so that he can respond!
See also:
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/O7CQGvc6AgAJ>
Notice the weakness of all apologists... is simple.
o Apologists like nospam have no adult response to facts.
--
Appologists have no adult defense to facts.
nospam
May 18, 2020, 7:10:02 AM5/18/20
to
In article <u1k4cfprgb9jdpdkr...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
you simply refuse to believe that dxo is a sleazy company.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> >> > > o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
> >> >
> >> > And I told you:
> >> >
> >> > For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> >> > longer interval from their release than other phones.
> >>
> >> the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
> >> fees.
> >>
> >> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
> >> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
> >> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
> >> highest ever'. money talks.
> >
> >Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>
> Do you really believe nospam?
>
> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
> support it.
oh yes i have, as have many, many other people.
> >> > >
> >> > > The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
> >> > > o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'
> >> >
> >> > And I told you:
> >> >
> >> > For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
> >> > longer interval from their release than other phones.
> >>
> >> the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
> >> fees.
> >>
> >> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
> >> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
> >> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
> >> highest ever'. money talks.
> >
> >Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>
> Do you really believe nospam?
>
> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
> support it.
you simply refuse to believe that dxo is a sleazy company.
Alan Baker
May 18, 2020, 8:30:20 PM5/18/20
to
On 2020-05-18 2:39 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
>>>> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
>>>> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
>>>> highest ever'. money talks.
>>>
>>> Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>>
>> Do you really believe nospam?
>>
>> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
>> support it.
>
> Regarding this astute comment moments ago from Eric Stevens...
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
>>>> also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
>>>> score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
>>>> highest ever'. money talks.
>>>
>>> Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.
>>
>> Do you really believe nospam?
>>
>> He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
>> support it.
>
This is the third place you've posted exactly the same information
("verbatim").
Alan Baker
May 18, 2020, 9:26:17 PM5/18/20
to
On 2020-05-17 8:15 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
>> longer interval from their release than other phones.
>
> Alan,
> How many iPhones has Apple ever made?
I haven't counted them.
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
>> longer interval from their release than other phones.
>
> Alan,
> How many iPhones has Apple ever made?
> o And how many are on the tested list at this very moment?
>
> HINT: Almost all of them.
>
> You seem to be making the famous claim that the next phone will be the
> killer even though _all_ the prior phones aren't even on the top ten.
I'm claiming that in a fast-moving and competitive marketplace, it makes
a large difference to where a product will come out in testing if you
test it significantly later than than its competition.
Let's look at the top 10:
Phone Score Release Test Posted Delay Country
Huawei
P40 Pro 128 2020-04-07 2020-03-31 -7 China
Honor
30 Pro+ 125 2020-04-21 2020-04-15 -6 China
(Again: test posted BEFORE the phones release. -6
Oppo
Find X2 Pro 124 2020-03-06 2020-03-06 0 China
Xiaomi
Mi 10 Pro 124 2020-02-18 2020-02-13 -5 China
Huawei
Mate 30 Pro 5G 123 2019-10-23 2019-12-17 +47 China
Honor
V30 Pro 122 2020-02-?? 2020-01-17 -?? China
Samsung
Galaxy S20 Ultra 122 2020-03-06 2020-04-22 +47 S.Korea
Huawei
Mate 30 Pro 121 2019-09-26 2019-09-26 0 China
Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro
Premium Edition 121 2019-11-11 2019-11-05 -6 China
Samsung Galaxy
S20+ 118 2020-03-06 2020-05-11 66 S.Korea
Apple iPhone
11 Pro Max 117 2019-09-20 2019-11-07 48 USA
In only ONE case in there, did a Chinese company's phone have a
significant delay between release and testing.
>
> It's classic for you apologists to simply fabricate your excuses for Apple.
>
> What your response proves is you're _desperate_ to fabricate an excuse for
> why _every_ iPhone that _was_ already tested (and that's literally almost
> every iPhone ever made!), isn't even on the top ten.
that other products that get test without delay (and even BEFORE their
release) are going to arrive with better specifications.
>
> What's interesting is how _desperate_ you apologists are to claim that
> Apple MARKETING brochures are the gospel and that every tester on the
> planet is being _bribed_ by everyone but Apple (according to nospam)...
>
> Why else are iPhones almost never even in the top list of camera QOR?
> o It must be a conspiracy because MARKETING brochures are so very pretty.
Wasn't it you who said there are 24,000 models of Android phone?
Don't they all have cameras?
Or is that claim now inconvenient?
>
> How could an Apple MARKETING brochure possibly not be right!
> o nospam: It must be that Apple didn't _bribe_ the reliable testers
> o Baker: It must be that the reliable testers _forgot_ Apple existed
getting better treatment.
Alan Baker
May 18, 2020, 11:00:13 PM5/18/20
to
On 2020-05-17 12:42 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And I told you:
>>
>> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
>> longer interval from their release than other phones.
>
> Alan,
>
> You're the only one on this planet who doesn't realize these simple facts:
> o Which is likely why you & nospam are so desperate to deflect the subject.
>
> 1. *Apple phones _are_ on the DXOMark list; they just aren't on the top ten!*
And they are typically tested after a significant delay after their
> On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> And I told you:
>>
>> For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
>> longer interval from their release than other phones.
>
> Alan,
>
> You're the only one on this planet who doesn't realize these simple facts:
> o Which is likely why you & nospam are so desperate to deflect the subject.
>
> 1. *Apple phones _are_ on the DXOMark list; they just aren't on the top ten!*
release. In a fast-moving, competitive technological marketplace, that
pretty much guarantees that phones that are reviewed shortly after their
release (or in the case of most Chinese phones, BEFORE their release)
will have more advances in camera technology.
> 2. *Virtually all Apple phones are tested; they just not in the top ten!*
>
> It's not that DXOMark doesn't test the iPhones; it's that the iPhones score
> so low that you don't _see_ any iPhone in the top ten (currently).
phones which are at the top.
>
> You can't see they're in the list; they're just not in the top ten slots.
> o The top ten slots, to the point of this thread, are mostly Chinese.
Weird, huh?
RichA
May 19, 2020, 3:10:57 AM5/19/20
to
Arlen Holder
May 19, 2020, 6:41:19 PM5/19/20
to
On Tue, 19 May 2020 11:51:47 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
> For a noise free Usenet experience filters/kill-files
> are an essential tool, and should be used.
*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
Here's a typical Usenet discussion WITHOUT apologists playing games:
o Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/PV4Shdb67iM>
Notice how _different_ a normal adult conversation is?
o Notice that the apologists aren't playing their games on it?
Notice "Chris", who is an apologist, didn't play his silly games?
o And yet, notice Alan Baker _did_ play his silly games on that.
But nobody else did - because it's not about Apple products.
o The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple.
Why are apologists like Savageduck so afraid of facts?
o I don't know why.
I suspect since facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems...
o That they wish to remain incredibly ignorant of the facts.
Being ignorant, like Savageduck claims he wishes to be...
o Helps apologists maintain their purely imaginary belief systems.
*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
--
Without apologists, this newsgroup would have adult conversations.
> For a noise free Usenet experience filters/kill-files
> are an essential tool, and should be used.
*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
Here's a typical Usenet discussion WITHOUT apologists playing games:
o Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/PV4Shdb67iM>
Notice how _different_ a normal adult conversation is?
o Notice that the apologists aren't playing their games on it?
Notice "Chris", who is an apologist, didn't play his silly games?
o And yet, notice Alan Baker _did_ play his silly games on that.
But nobody else did - because it's not about Apple products.
o The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple.
Why are apologists like Savageduck so afraid of facts?
o I don't know why.
I suspect since facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems...
o That they wish to remain incredibly ignorant of the facts.
Being ignorant, like Savageduck claims he wishes to be...
o Helps apologists maintain their purely imaginary belief systems.
*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
--
Without apologists, this newsgroup would have adult conversations.
Arlen Holder
May 20, 2020, 9:31:47 AM5/20/20
to
On Mon, 18 May 2020 20:00:33 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> It's that they test the iPhones significantly later than they test the
> phones which are at the top.
Alan,
> It's that they test the iPhones significantly later than they test the
> phones which are at the top.
Do you even realize how _desperate_ you are to fabricate any _excuse_ for
why Apple iPhones rarely are high in the top ten at any given time frame?
Alan Baker
May 20, 2020, 12:03:58 PM5/20/20
to
On 2020-05-19 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 11:51:47 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> For a noise free Usenet experience filters/kill-files
>> are an essential tool, and should be used.
>
> *The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
Why is your post in reply to me, Liar?
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 11:51:47 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> For a noise free Usenet experience filters/kill-files
>> are an essential tool, and should be used.
>
> *The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/messageid$3Ar9vcjl$24ap6$2...@dont-email.me>
Why don't you deal with the detailed information I gave you on when
phones get tested by DXOMark?
Alan Baker
May 20, 2020, 12:09:08 PM5/20/20
to
Put back all the text you snipped and I'll reply to that question.
Eric Stevens
Jun 1, 2020, 5:56:56 AM6/1/20
to
iPhones are getting tested late? No matter what the answer is, why is
there that difference? It is unlikely to be bribery unless all Chinese
manufacturers bribe DxO Mark.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Arlen Holder
Jun 1, 2020, 2:50:18 PM6/1/20
to
On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 21:56:51 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
> Is it that all Chinese phones are getting tested early or is that
> iPhones are getting tested late? No matter what the answer is, why is
> there that difference? It is unlikely to be bribery unless all Chinese
> manufacturers bribe DxO Mark.
Hi Eric Stevens,
> Is it that all Chinese phones are getting tested early or is that
> iPhones are getting tested late? No matter what the answer is, why is
> there that difference? It is unlikely to be bribery unless all Chinese
> manufacturers bribe DxO Mark.
Yours is a good question, which we can let whomever you asked, answer.
Rest assured, the apologists' intent is not to be purposefully helpful.
o Their goal is to make excuses for Apple not being what Apple claims.
What I can advise you on is there are 3 types of Apple apologists (IMHO):
o Type I, canonical member === nospam
o Type II, canonical member === savageduck
o Type III, canonical member === alan baker
I've studied the Apple apologists for years, and, in fact, I became
interested in their strange behavior ever since they sent me on fruitless
wild-goose chases, where the apologists sadistically claimed Apple
functionality that simply didn't exist.
They all fabricate excuses for Apple's behavior in different ways:
o Type I apologists never go against Apple MARKETING mantra (never!)
o Type II apologists sometimes go against Apple MARKETING (rarely so)
o Type III apologists are astoundingly biased toward Apple MARKETING
What's interesting is an assessment of their excuses for Apple behavior:
o Type I apologists are rather clever in how they contort their claims
o Type II apologists are unduly swayed by MARKETING (more so than most)
o Type III apologists are literally immune to any facts they don't like
Rest assured, the apologists' intent is not to be purposefully helpful.
o Mainly they make excuses for Apple not being what Apple claims it is.
As for what these three types of apologists "believe", that's interesting:
o Type I apologists rarely believe what they themselves claim, in that you
can tell by the clever "exception" words they use, that they're just
covering for Apple Marketing (e.g., when Apple fails independent tests).
o Type II apologists truly believe what they claim, but they're not
malicious, in that you can tell they're simply ignorant of basic facts
o Type III apologists actually _believe_ what they claim (which is truly
petrifying, in that such people, apparently, actually exist in the flesh!)
But all apologists will fabricate similar excuses such as:
o Apple scores poorly in independent tests because Apple didn't bribe them
(note this extends to batteries, and to drop tests, not just cameras!)
o Apple scores poorly because the test procedures are unfavorable to Apple)
(this is, in general, the apologists' favorite excuse, by far)
o Apple scores poorly because the reviews tested Apple products too late)
(this is the favorite excuse of Alan Baker is the "hail mary" play)
etc.
NOTE: By definition, if the independent test doesn't show Apple to be as
good as the MARKETING claims, then, by definition, one or more of the
excuses above applies, which is the default position of apologists all.
In summary, what you see with the Type III apologists (e.g., Alan Baker,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, Joerg Lorenz, roctb, Lloyd, Davoud, et al.) is an
exaggerated version of the excuses from the Type II apologists (e.g.,
Savageduck, Chris, Steve Scharf, Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser
Wade Garrett, et al.).
And what you see, always, from the Type I apologists (e.g., nospam), is
that he never defies Apple MARKETING and always makes excuses for the
behavior of Apple in all ways he can possibly conjure up.
--
Rest assured, the apologists' intent is not to be purposefully helpful.
o Mainly they make excuses for Apple not being what Apple claims it is.
0 new messages