Resale value

[Alan Browne]

"The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
-WaPo
https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

[Andy Burns]

Alan Browne quoted:

> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."

> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH

Re-sale value is unimportant to me.

Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.

[badgolferman]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> -WaPo
> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>

Do you actually resale your phone or does it go in the drawer as a spare?
I’m leery of buying used phones unless they’re coming from someone I know.
And the times I do buy a phone it’s because the one I have is broken or too
old. They end up in the drawer or given to recycle programs. I guess some
people buy a new phone every year just to boast about it.

[Frank Slootweg]

As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.

Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.

Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...

Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.

However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
*both* definitions (of 'not expensive').

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>
>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>
>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>
>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>
> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.

"very few" is a huge underestimate.

> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.

"Many" is a huge overestimate.

>
> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...

Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).

> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.

Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
spec end.

> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').

Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.

In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
Android, less.

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >> Alan Browne quoted:
> >>
> >>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> >>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
> >>
> >> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
> >>
> >> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
> >> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
> >> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
> >
> > As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
> > Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>
> "very few" is a huge underestimate.

Your guess is as good as mine.

> > Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>
> "Many" is a huge overestimate.

Your guess is as good as mine.

> > Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
> > zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
> > resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>
> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).

Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
*My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.

> > Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
> > they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>
> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
> spec end.

Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
differences are often relatively smaller.

> > However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
> > also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
> > *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>
> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.

And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)

> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
> Android, less.

Because we just keep using them! :-)

But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

[Rod Speed]

But did you compare the price of a brand new from apple
of one of the iphone that is no longer the current model ?
I just dont believe that that would have been twice the price.

> Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.

But not half the price.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>
>>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>>
>>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>>
>>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
>>>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
>>>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>>
>>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
>>> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
>>
>> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.
>
>>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
>>
>> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
>
> Your guess is as good as mine.

Your guess is useless.

Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
sub-industry in itself.

>
>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
>>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
>>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>>
>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
>
> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.

Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
the genera case.

Par.

>
>>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
>>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>>
>> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
>> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
>> spec end.
>
> Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
> users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
> differences are often relatively smaller.

Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
they can't be it is invalid data.

>
>>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
>>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>
>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>
> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)

Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
given period.

Sad reality.

>
>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>> Android, less.
>
> Because we just keep using them! :-)

Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 12:10, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-11-04 08:52, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Alan Browne quoted:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> >>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
> >>>>
> >>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare, have
> >>>> given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing machine and
> >>>> I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
> >>>
> >>> As you say, I think very few people actually resell their old phone.
> >>> Some might trade it in, but that's not the same as reselling.
> >>
> >> "very few" is a huge underestimate.
> >
> > Your guess is as good as mine.
> >
> >>> Many (most?) - also iPhone users - will do what you describe.
> >>
> >> "Many" is a huge overestimate.
> >
> > Your guess is as good as mine.
>
> Your guess is useless.
>
> Fact is people sell or trade in their phones and this is a major
> sub-industry in itself.

Trade-in yes, resell not so much. (*Buying* a *refurb* is a different
thing alltogether.)

> >>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
> >>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
> >>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
> >>
> >> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
> >> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
> >
> > Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> > the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> > was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> > camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> > expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> > as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> > *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
>
> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
> the genera case.

Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing
less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
example. Try to read for comprehension.

> Par.

Nope.

> >>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
> >>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
> >>
> >> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
> >> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
> >> spec end.
> >
> > Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
> > users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
> > differences are often relatively smaller.
>
> Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
> they can't be it is invalid data.

Tell that ("it is invalid data") to your 'mates'.

> >>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
> >>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
> >>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
> >>
> >> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
> >> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
> >
> > And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
> > rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
> > cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>
> Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
> phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
> another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
> given period.
>
> Sad reality.

Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
is irrelevant.

> >> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
> >> Android, less.
> >
> > Because we just keep using them! :-)
>
> Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
> the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
> becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
> worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).

At least *that* we can agree on! :-)

AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.

[Alan Browne]

Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.

Period.

>
>>>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my phone would be
>>>>> zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the cheapest iPhone minus
>>>>> resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my* wallet, ...
>>>>
>>>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
>>>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
>>>
>>> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
>>> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
>>> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
>>> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
>>> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
>>> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
>>> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
>>
>> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
>> the genera case.
>
> Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing

The essence of cherry picking since you used it as a valid comparison
against a generalized case. Sheesh!

> less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
> example. Try to read for comprehension.

Don't bother with one-offs in a general comparison.

>
>> Par.
>
> Nope.

A lot.

>
>>>>> Apple users here often claim that iPhones are not expensive, by which
>>>>> they *mean* that in their *perception*, they're good value for money.
>>>>
>>>> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
>>>> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
>>>> spec end.
>>>
>>> Whoosh yourself, see above. That's *exactly* the point: What Apple
>>> users *claim*, versus reality. But yes, at the (very) high end, the
>>> differences are often relatively smaller.
>>
>> Not at. Whoosh on you. Comparisons are made where they can be. Where
>> they can't be it is invalid data.
>
> Tell that ("it is invalid data") to your 'mates'.

Not sure what you're on about.

Point is, for Androids range of quality levels 1..10, Apple only make
phones in the 4 .. 10 range. So, the Androids in the 1..3 range can't
be compared (values above are illustrative).

>
>>>>> However in the real world (and the dictionary), the term 'expensive'
>>>>> also means 'costs a lot of money'. IME, Android users tend to go by
>>>>> *both* definitions (of 'not expensive').
>>>>
>>>> Android users can pay just as high for high end phones - and the point
>>>> of the article is that Android phones depreciate quicker.
>>>
>>> And - as Andy and I (and others) explain - the "depreciation" is a
>>> rather fictituous concept, because it does affect few people and few
>>> cases. (Again, don't confuse resale with trade-in.)
>>
>> Yes, don't. Go to those who actually do this - centres that re-purpose
>> phones that are traded in (one price level) and the one-to-one market -
>> another level. In both cases, Androids devalue more than iPhones over a
>> given period.
>>
>> Sad reality.
>
> Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
> is irrelevant.

But it isn't across the range - and that is what the article is about,
not your narrow use case.

>
>>>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>>>> Android, less.
>>>
>>> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>>
>> Most people I know keep their iPhones about 5 years. While there remain
>> the 'junkies' out there who can't go 2 years (sometimes 1), that is
>> becoming less and less common as the incremental performance is not
>> worth the cost. (Android or iPhone).
>
> At least *that* we can agree on! :-)

:-)

>
> AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.

Agreed - except where we disagree!

[Carlos E. R.]

There are people that love to have the latest. These people may try to
sell their previous phone before their natural end of life, and they
still have value.

Other people keep their phone till they no longer work for them for some
reason. Few of the old can be resold, they have little value — after
all, they don't "work" for some meaning of the word.

Others simply reuse older phones. Secondary phone, spare, handmedowns...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

[Judst clarifying some loose ends.]

Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
article, I would have gone there.

> Period.

Agreed (in hindsight).

> >>>>> Anyway, AFAIC, even if the resale/trade-in value of my
> >>>>> phone would be zero, the *cost* is still much less than even the
> >>>>> cheapest iPhone minus resale/trade-in. So if you'd ask *my*
> >>>>> wallet, ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Apples and oranges. The comparison is for like spec iPhones v. Android.
> >>>> You can't compare a value Android to a flagship iPhone (or v-v).
> >>>
> >>> Nope. That's what Apple fans like to *pretend*, but that's not always
> >>> the case. In my case, documented here at the time, the closest iPhone
> >>> was twice as expensive, had half the storage and a lower resolution
> >>> camera. So it was indeed Apple to orange, because the Apple was *more*
> >>> expensive for *lesser* specs. Yes, it is just an example, but - as much
> >>> as the Apple fans 'hate' it - it's not the only example. So as I said:
> >>> *My* wallet says *my* *cost* is lower.
> >>
> >> Yes - this is what Android fans do. Cherry pick a case and pretend it is
> >> the genera case.
> >
> > Its not cherry picking, it's *my* example/case, nothing more, nothing
>
> The essence of cherry picking since you used it as a valid comparison
> against a generalized case. Sheesh!
>
> > less. And I didn't say it's the general case, I said it's not the only
> > example. Try to read for comprehension.
>
> Don't bother with one-offs in a general comparison.

Mine was a specific case from the start, hence my use of "my"
(twice)). That you tried to make it into a generalization is not my
problem.

[...]

> > Earth to Alan: We don't care! When our *cost* is lower, "devaluation"
> > is irrelevant.
>
> But it isn't across the range - and that is what the article is about,
> not your narrow use case.

The article is about "high-end smartphones", "a fancy device", etc.,
where - as I said/agreed - the (new) price differences are smaller and
hence the lower relative devaluation for iPhones is indeed important.
But *I* and others are *not* just talking about the high-end. Hence I
gave my example where the devaluation was irrelevant.

[...]

> > AFAIC, EOD. There's just no point.
>
> Agreed - except where we disagree!

Thanks. Till another time.

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on 4 Nov 2023 16:10:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg

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

>
>> In part because there is a strong secondary market for iPhones -
>> Android, less.
>
> Because we just keep using them! :-)
>
> But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
>mainly due to the long support cycle. That might change because Android
>support cycles are getting much longer (than before) rather quickly.
>We'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

There is suppport for my Android phone!?

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 4 Nov 2023 14:35:22 -0400, Alan Browne

I can't stand this bickering. It reminds me of growing up.

I'm going to buy a Windows phone.

[Frank Slootweg]

Of course there is! Is it floating in the air? No? So there is some
kind of support for it!

Elementary, dear Watson!

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-04 21:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [Judst clarifying some loose ends.]
>
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

...

>> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>
> Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
> looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
> article, I would have gone there.

Same here.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

"WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
freaking time.

[Your Name]

If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
"resale value" for them. :-)

An Original, Factory-Sealed, 4GB iPhone
Just Sold at Auction for Over US$190,000

<https://gizmodo.com/original-sealed-iphone-sells-auction-190-000-dollars-1850647037>

[Your Name]

Even if the makers still support the OS (which despite claims is not
true for old versions of Android either), the phone companies don't
keep supporting them forever - 3G networks are being turned off, 4G and
5G networks will also eventually be turned off as newer systems come
along. Your device may well still work, but it will be useless as a
phone / text-messenger.

[The Real Bev]

On 11/4/23 2:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 12:19:51 +0000, Andy Burns said:
>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>
>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>
>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>
>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
>> have given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing
>> machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>
> If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
> "resale value" for them. :-)

Not necessarily. I have two genuine Xerox acoustic modems unused in
their original boxes which I doubt have any value at all.

> An Original, Factory-Sealed, 4GB iPhone
> Just Sold at Auction for Over US$190,000
>
> <https://gizmodo.com/original-sealed-iphone-sells-auction-190-000-dollars-1850647037>

--
Cheers, Bev
"When I was in college, the only job I could get was
shitting on people's lawns. Sure, the owners complained,
but it was honest work and it kept me off welfare..."
-- M. Tabnik in mcfl (paraphrased)

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-04 17:41, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/4/23 2:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 12:19:51 +0000, Andy Burns said:
>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>
>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>
>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>
>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
>>> have given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing
>>> machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>
>> If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
>> "resale value" for them.  :-)
>
> Not necessarily.  I have two genuine Xerox acoustic modems unused in
> their original boxes which I doubt have any value at all.

Funny, people used to camp outside the Xerox store, around the block,
for 2 days before a new version came out...

Call Hollywood - you never know - they might rent them from you...

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-04 21:38, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-11-04 16:22, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 21:02, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> [Judst clarifying some loose ends.]
>>>
>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Muddying the waters (badly). The point of the article was how much the
>>>> seller could get for a phone v. what he paid for it.
>>>
>>>    Fair enough. I went by the Subject of your post. I don't follow shady
>>> looking URLs. If you'd said it was a pointer to a The Washington Post
>>> article, I would have gone there.
>>
>> Same here.
>>
>
> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
> freaking time.

And I should know that because... ?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[The Real Bev]

:-)

It's a well-known abbreviation all over the world. I thought that ALL
literate people knew that. <sigh> They did bring down (Woodward &
Bernstein), with Judge Sirica's help, of course, our President Nixon.

A cool thing -- we actually met Sirica in his office a few days after
Nixon resigned. Nice guy.


--
Cheers, Bev
"We're from the Government. We're here to help."

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-04 18:52, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/4/23 3:00 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 21:38, Alan Browne wrote:

>>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a
>>> long freaking time.
>>
>> And I should know that because... ?
>
> :-)
>
> It's a well-known abbreviation all over the world.  I thought that ALL
> literate people knew that.

Well, ...

> <sigh>  They did bring down (Woodward &
> Bernstein), with Judge Sirica's help, of course, our President Nixon.

Watched "All the President's Men" a couple weeks ago. Good slow burn movie.

>
> A cool thing -- we actually met Sirica in his office a few days after
> Nixon resigned.  Nice guy.

That is cool!

[Andy Burns]

Alan Browne wrote:

> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
> freaking time.

But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
where it'll lead?

[Oscar Mayer]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 09:23:07 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> Whoosh - for comparable spec, the prices are similar between iPhone and
> Android. The main difference is that Apple offer little at the bottom
> spec end.

What an idiot. No iPhone comes even close to what Android phones do.
That means there is no comparison that is possible for him to make.

Unless he completely ignores that Android phones do more than iPhones can.
If that's what he's doing, then he's an idiot. Pure and simple. An idiot.

[Wally J]

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> But yes, there is a strong secondary market for iPhones, probably
> mainly due to the long support cycle.

Long support cycle? Are you kidding? Or just ignorant, Frank?

FACT:
The iPhone full-hotfix support cycle is only a _single_ release, Frank.
*That's the _shortest_ support cycle in the entire industry.*

If an iPhone can't run iOS 17, it's not fully supported, Frank.
Meanwhile, neither Andy nor I can find an EOL date for most of Android.

[Your Name]

On 2023-11-04 21:41:37 +0000, The Real Bev said:

> On 11/4/23 2:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-11-04 12:19:51 +0000, Andy Burns said:
>>> Alan Browne quoted:
>>>>
>>>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>>>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>>
>>> Re-sale value is unimportant to me.
>>>
>>> Of all my android phones, I keep the most recent as a viable spare,
>>> have given three to family members, one was destroyed by washing
>>> machine and I keep the oldest one for nostalgia reasons.
>>
>> If you keep them sealed in the box, then you might get a lot more
>> "resale value" for them. :-)
>
> Not necessarily. I have two genuine Xerox acoustic modems unused in
> their original boxes which I doubt have any value at all.

There are a few acoustic couplers / modems on eBay with prices starting
at around US$60 - one Panasonic one with the box is priced at almost
US$500. Whether they actually sell or not is a different question
though. :-)

[Frankie]

The Washington Post didn't factor in that an iPhone costs two to three
times as much over its lifetime to operate than an Android phone does.

[Wally J]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote

> Even if the makers still support the OS (which despite claims is not
> true for old versions of Android either), the phone companies don't
> keep supporting them forever - 3G networks are being turned off, 4G and
> 5G networks will also eventually be turned off as newer systems come
> along. Your device may well still work, but it will be useless as a
> phone / text-messenger.

The fact is the iPhone has the _shortest_ support cycle in the industry.
And the iPhone has ten times as many _exploited_ zero-day holes too.

It's always the case that the ignorant iKooks are completely clueless that
multiple versions of Android are fully supported while only a single
version of iOS is ever fully supported. Right now that's _only_ iOS 17.

No other version of iOS is fully supported at any time but the latest.
That's it.

One release.
That's partly _why_ the iPhone is exploited ten times more than is Android.

In addition, the ignorant iKooks are blissfully unaware most of Android is
modular, and hence it's supported forever, in that nobody can find the EOL
date for mainstream modules (which comprise more than half of Android).

[Wally J]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote

> Do you actually resale your phone or does it go in the drawer as a spare?
> I▌ leery of buying used phones unless they┴e coming from someone I know.
> And the times I do buy a phone it┬ because the one I have is broken or too
> old. They end up in the drawer or given to recycle programs. I guess some
> people buy a new phone every year just to boast about it.

You can chastise me if I ever say something unreasonable or illogical.

My Samsung Galaxy A32-5G was free from T-Mobile (as you're well aware),
so all I paid was the 10% sales tax on the MSPR and it came with a charger.

That free phone is far more powerful than any iPhone ever sold, in terms of
what it can do (which I hope people understand by now), so it's already
better than any iPhone ever sold - and it was essentially free + tax.

Alan Browne claims he can find a "comparable" iPhone but he can't.
He lied.

As just one example, my free phone does GPS spoofing.
Can any iPhone do that?

My free phone can graphically debug Wi-Fi APs. Can any iPhone do that?
My free phone can run the Tor browser. Can any iPhone do that?
My free phone can run a system firewall. Can any iPhone do that?
My free phone can swap out the launcher. Can any iPhone do that?
My free phone can change the default text messenger.
My free phone can do automatic call recording.
My free phone can torrent.
My free phone can ...

The point is that Alan Browne pretends that his iPhone can do that.
But it can't.

There is no "comparable" iPhone to even my free Android phone.
What Alan Browne is doing is ignoring that an iPhone is just a toy.

A very expensive toy.
But a toy nonetheless.

There is no comparison between what an iPhone & Android phone does.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote

> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."

> -WaPo
> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH

[Carlos E. R.]

Who is that Nixon guy?
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[The Real Bev]

He, at that time the most powerful man in the world, was nice enough to
chat for 15 minutes or so with a random California family who just
wanted to watch him hold court. When some celebrity puts on airs, think
about that.

We also saw the file cabinet where The Tapes were stored.

> Who is that Nixon guy?

President
Plumbers
I am not a crook
Apple Brown Ratty
Deep Throat

Looking back, his 'crimes' weren't all that bad. He didn't actually do
anything, he just covered up a break-in to the Dem Party HQ by some
White House employees, probably after the fact. If he'd been a Democrat
he would have been sent to bed without supper.


--
Cheers, Bev
If you have one lawyer in town, he goes hungry.
If you have two lawyers in town, they both get rich.

[Frank Slootweg]

Indeed, just saying "The Washington Post" would have been enough. (And
explaining why the short URL was needed (i.e. to show an article behind a
paywall).)

Funny thing, when I - after the fact - invoked the URL, it failed two
or three times, one time wth a DNS lookup failure.

I guess that - at least on this side of the pond - not too many people
reference websites with the TLD of a small African island nation! :-)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.st>

[Frank Slootweg]

Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> wrote:
[...]

> Even if the makers still support the OS (which despite claims is not
> true for old versions of Android either), the phone companies don't
> keep supporting them forever - 3G networks are being turned off, 4G and
> 5G networks will also eventually be turned off as newer systems come
> along. Your device may well still work, but it will be useless as a
> phone / text-messenger.

Nah, no problem! We'll just hop from one Maccas to the next Starbucks
and use WhatsApp and live happily ever after.

[Frank Slootweg]

[Alan Browne]

How so? If I operated an Android the way I operate my iPhone the costs
would be the same (other than minor variance due to power consumption in
one over the other).

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-04 23:03, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/4/23 6:50 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>> Who is that Nixon guy?
>
> President
> Plumbers
> I am not a crook
> Apple Brown Ratty

> Deep Throat

Eh? Deep Throat = Mark Felt.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-05 05:37, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
>>> freaking time.
>>
>> But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
>> where it'll lead?
>
> Indeed, just saying "The Washington Post" would have been enough. (And
> explaining why the short URL was needed (i.e. to show an article behind a
> paywall).)

It (https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH ) is a gift link - will open anywhere.

Just tested on various browsers and different machines where I'm not
logged into my WaPo account.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-05 05:44, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
>>> freaking time.
>>
>> But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
>> where it'll lead?
>
> Indeed, just saying "The Washington Post" would have been enough. (And
> explaining why the short URL was needed (i.e. to show an article behind a
> paywall).)

Correct. Next time I'll spell it out in full.

Incorrect: the article was a free "gift" - no paywall via that link.

>
> Funny thing, when I - after the fact - invoked the URL, it failed two
> or three times, one time wth a DNS lookup failure.

No issue here. Various browsers - not logged in to WaPo, from various
VPN sites (Paris, Tokyo, Santiago)

[Frank Slootweg]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-05 05:44, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >> Alan Browne wrote:
> >>
> >>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
> >>> freaking time.
> >>
> >> But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
> >> where it'll lead?
> >
> > Indeed, just saying "The Washington Post" would have been enough. (And
> > explaining why the short URL was needed (i.e. to show an article behind a
> > paywall).)
>
> Correct. Next time I'll spell it out in full.

Thanks.

> Incorrect: the article was a free "gift" - no paywall via that link.

Yes, that's what I meant, hence "why ... needed" and "to show ...".
It would have been better/clearer if I had said "to show an article
_which is_ behind a paywall.

> > Funny thing, when I - after the fact - invoked the URL, it failed two
> > or three times, one time wth a DNS lookup failure.
>
> No issue here. Various browsers - not logged in to WaPo, from various
> VPN sites (Paris, Tokyo, Santiago)

Yes, as I mentioned, it was probably just a DNS lookup failure. Now it
- of course - works fine, because it's in all kinds of caches.

[Arno Welzel]

Alan Browne, 2023-11-04 13:11:

> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
> -WaPo
> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH

This may change when Android devices also get updates for 7 years.

Because the value of older devices is also limited by the fact that many
Android devices don't get any support after a couple of years while a 4
year old iPhone can still be used for a number of years.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[Frankie]

On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

>>>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
>>>> freaking time.
>>>
>>> But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
>>> where it'll lead?
>>
>> The Washington Post didn't factor in that an iPhone costs two to three
>> times as much over its lifetime to operate than an Android phone does.
>
> How so? If I operated an Android the way I operate my iPhone the costs
> would be the same (other than minor variance due to power consumption in
> one over the other).

The Post only looked at a single cherry picked datapoint which is at the
final point of resale/tradein but they ignored Apple's 3X lifetime costs.

It's well known Apple apps costs more than Android apps and that Apple
accessories are less often provided than Android accessories in the box.

It's well known Apple designed proprietary cabling (until forced to be
compatible) and Apple removed ports & slots so you have to buy more stuff.

It's also well known Apple accessories cost more than Android accessories,
and that most Apple owners pay forever for AppleCare because they're afraid
of their phones breaking (as Apple repairs are usually ten times the cost).

When you average out the huge waste of owning Apple products, it's always
two to three times the overall cost of owning similar Android devices.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-05 13:37, Frankie wrote:
> On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>>>> "WaPo" has been shorthand for The Washington Post since ... well a long
>>>>> freaking time.
>>>>
>>>> But that's only clear *after* you've gone there, before that who knows
>>>> where it'll lead?
>>>
>>> The Washington Post didn't factor in that an iPhone costs two to three
>>> times as much over its lifetime to operate than an Android phone does.
>>
>> How so? If I operated an Android the way I operate my iPhone the costs
>> would be the same (other than minor variance due to power consumption in
>> one over the other).
>
> The Post only looked at a single cherry picked datapoint

Uhm - no. They didn't.

[Wally J]

Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote

> This may change when Android devices also get updates for 7 years.
>
> Because the value of older devices is also limited by the fact that many
> Android devices don't get any support after a couple of years while a 4
> year old iPhone can still be used for a number of years.

Hi Arno,

Even smart people assume incredibly ignorant things, Arno.
Why?

Because even smart people can be incredibly ignorant of the facts.
<https://www.androidpolice.com/project-mainline-android-14/>
<https://artihe.com/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-project-mainline-on-android-14-and-later/>

The facts are that most of Android is supported forever, Arno. (1)

*What's new in Google System Updates*
<https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/11412553>

*Google Will Publish Monthly Changelog For Google Play System Updates*
<https://www.androidheadlines.com/2022/01/google-monthly-changelog-play-system-updates.html>

*Now you can learn what's new in each Google Play system update for Android*
<https://9to5google.com/2022/01/10/whats-new-android-google-play-system-updates/>

*How to find out what's actually new in Google Play System Updates*
<https://www.esper.io/blog/building-a-google-play-system-update-changelog>

*Reboot Chronicles: An in-depth look at Android Mainline updates*
<https://www.intuneirl.com/why-your-android-device-reboots/>

Notice Apple supports only one release and every Android 10+ device
is supported forever - and yet - even smart people are unaware of that. (1)

Does anyone on this newsgroup comprehend simple basic obvious facts?
In fact, the iPhone has the _shortest_ support life in the industry, Arno.

You seem intelligent so I think you can comprehend that the iPhone is not
updated anything like every other common computing device is updated.

Up until iOS 16, iOS was shipped _only_ as a primitive monolith; and iOS
is _still_ a primitive monolith but at least it was slightly opened in iOS 16.
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201224>

Hence, the first thing intelligent people need to realize is iOS is a
primitive monolith - which takes a loooooooooong time to update...
which is one of the reasons iOS is exploited ten times more than Android is.

Don't believe me?
Read this.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

But the primitive structure of iOS updates is only one of the many
reasons that iOS has the shortest full support lifespan in the industry, Arno.

The fact is that the only people claiming a long support lifetime for Apple
devices are people who are always unaware of not only that salient fact...

But they _always ignorant of the salient facts that iOS is not updated
like any other operating system is updated, Arno.

And that's why full support for iOS is the _shortest_ in the industry.

Don't believe me?
Are you aware that Apple only fully supports a _single_ release?
I am.

Want proof?
<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>

Given every other operating system _except_ for iOS is updated in multiple
layers, are you aware that Android's mainline support is forever? (1)
--
(1) Forever here means every Android 10+ device is updated monthly over
the Internet so quietly that almost nobody but Andy Burns on this newsgroup
is aware of that salient fact - and - neither Andy nor I can find any EOL
date for these monthly updates - and - all of the updates are donated to
AOSP - so even if Google did stop updating Android phones forever - the
open source community could support Android phones for decades thereafter.

[Frankie]

On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

>> The Post only looked at a single cherry picked datapoint
>
> Uhm - no. They didn't.

Look again.

It's a cherry picked statistic that completely ignored lifetime costs.

Apple's lifetime costs are always double to triple that of Android.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-05 13:58, Frankie wrote:
> On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> The Post only looked at a single cherry picked datapoint
>>
>> Uhm - no. They didn't.
>
> Look again.
>
> It's a cherry picked statistic that completely ignored lifetime costs.

Not at all.

>
> Apple's lifetime costs are always double to triple that of Android.

Inane. I asked you to illustrate that in another post - you ignored it
because you can't.

[Frankie]

On 6/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

>> It's a cherry picked statistic that completely ignored lifetime costs.
>
> Not at all.

When you average the huge waste of owning Apple products where you have to
overcome the loss of ports and missing slots and proprietary cabling and
repair costs so far off the charts everyone pays high ransoms to AppleCare,
it's always 2X to 3X the overall cost of owning similar Android devices.

Doesn't it occur to you that's why Apple profits are so very high?

Or do you think Apple's profits are off the charts because they're not
fleecing you every time you have to buy something that is free on Android?

People like you pay many times what Android costs & then brag about getting
a very tiny amount of your wasted money back in what you call resale value.

Apple makes all that money off of people like you.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-11-06 00:26, Frankie wrote:
> On 6/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> It's a cherry picked statistic that completely ignored lifetime costs.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> When you average the huge waste of owning Apple products where you have to
> overcome the loss of ports and missing slots and proprietary cabling and
> repair costs so far off the charts everyone pays high ransoms to AppleCare,
> it's always 2X to 3X the overall cost of owning similar Android devices.

You can't come up with proof of that, of course. Since my devices in
the past came with all the cables I've ever needed, there is no cost to
add more.

The only additional cable I've ever bought is for my car just because I
wanted the shortest version possible to avoid cable clutter.

That's it. No other costs at all. On my 3rd iPhone.

Ironically Europe's absurd rules will likely force me to buy 2 or 3
cables when I eventually get a new phone (to cover the office, car and
home office).

> Doesn't it occur to you that's why Apple profits are so very high?

That's not why their profits are so high.

On all of their products, they command high margins because the phones
(and other products) are popular. And they are popular because they are
very good.

And in the right use case, integrate across Apple devices so seamlessly
that one tends to not notice it going on.

> Or do you think Apple's profits are off the charts because they're not
> fleecing you every time you have to buy something that is free on Android?

I've never been forced to buy anything extra from Apple to keep my Apple
things going. Once case (above) was for "neatness".

>
> People like you pay many times what Android costs & then brag about getting
> a very tiny amount of your wasted money back in what you call resale value.
>
> Apple makes all that money off of people like you.

Good for them and good that several mutual funds of mine hold Apple stock.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-06 14:02, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-11-06 00:26, Frankie wrote:
>> On 6/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> It's a cherry picked statistic that completely ignored lifetime costs.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>> When you average the huge waste of owning Apple products where you
>> have to
>> overcome the loss of ports and missing slots and proprietary cabling and
>> repair costs so far off the charts everyone pays high ransoms to
>> AppleCare,
>> it's always 2X to 3X the overall cost of owning similar Android devices.
>
> You can't come up with proof of that, of course.  Since my devices in
> the past came with all the cables I've ever needed, there is no cost to
> add more.

I remember a kid that got an Apple tablet (I don't know the proper name)
as a present from an uncle, who also came to configure it all for the
first time. Then the father bought him a foldable case, and had to pay
for it a hefty price. He commented on it to me, saying how expensive was
to own that Apple tablet, the housefold being otherwise on Android.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

So buying an over priced case in a marketplace of thousands of lower
priced options plays into this? Sheesh.

Anyway, samples of one, picked for the comments, as always don't
represent the whole - not even close.

[Carlos E. R.]

Apple stuff.

Wen we have to buy Apple stuff we have to pay by the nose. Android Stuff
is cheaper.

It just is.

So when we have to decide what brand to buy a tablet or phone, that
enters our consideration, not being fans.

> Anyway, samples of one, picked for the comments, as always don't
> represent the whole - not even close.

Oh, but I had dozens of similar experiences in the last forty years or
so. Everybody I talked with along the years commented that owning an
Apple thing was expensive.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan Browne]

In your head.

>
> So when we have to decide what brand to buy a tablet or phone, that
> enters our consideration, not being fans.
>
>> Anyway, samples of one, picked for the comments, as always don't
>> represent the whole - not even close.
>
> Oh, but I had dozens of similar experiences in the last forty years or
> so. Everybody I talked with along the years commented that owning an
> Apple thing was expensive.

Sure.

[sms]

On 11/4/2023 5:20 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>> "The iPhone is obviously superior at one thing. Ask your wallet."
>> -WaPo
>> https://wapo.st/45Ya1CH
>>
>

> Do you actually resale your phone or does it go in the drawer as a spare?

> I’m leery of buying used phones unless they’re coming from someone I know.
> And the times I do buy a phone it’s because the one I have is broken or too

> old. They end up in the drawer or given to recycle programs. I guess some
> people buy a new phone every year just to boast about it.

The TCO of a flagship Android versus a flagship iPhone is very close.
The Android device will have a slightly lower initial cost but will also
have lower trade-in value or resale value.

For non-flagship devices it is probably also the case.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[Frankie]

On 6/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Oh, but I had dozens of similar experiences in the last forty years or
>> so. Everybody I talked with along the years commented that owning an
>> Apple thing was expensive.
>
> Sure.

Why do you think Apple's profits are so high anyway?

The average cost to own Apple iPhones is more than two or three times the
average cost of owning Android phones for a lot of reasons related to this.

For one, as you mentioned, Apple accessories are far more expensive.
Especially since they're almost always special Apple proprietary parts.

For another, people are afraid of Apple fleecing them on repairs.
So they spend enormous sums every year on something they call Apple Care.
Apple is very happy to take their money from them because they're scared.

Nobody on Android needs Android Care.
It's only something Apple owners pay for.
Because repairs on Apple iPhones earned a flunking grade by iFixit.

Then when they do buy genuine Apple parts, if they don't also have Apple
replace those parts and reset the security lock, it doesn't work right.

All this is well known because iFixit gave the latest two years' worth of
iPhones a flunking grade in repairability. iFixit even retroactively
flunked older Apple phones when they found out Apple was doing that.

Apple made repairs impossible to do without resetting Apple locks on
purpose of course which is why people are so afraid they get Apple Care.

What's the worst part isn't even that many apps which are free on Android
cost money on iOS and those that cost money on Android cost more on iOS.

But it is even worse than that because Apple removes standard things like
the sdcard slot which almost every Android phone has for portable memory.

And APple removed the aux port which means that you can't use your wired
headphones anymore. Instead you have to buy expensive wireless products.

In the end, you're paying two to three times more for Apple products.
People who own Apple products actually brag how much they cost them.

[Frankie]

On 6/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Or do you think Apple's profits are off the charts because they're not
>> fleecing you every time you have to buy something that is free on Android?
>
> I've never been forced to buy anything extra from Apple to keep my Apple
> things going. Once case (above) was for "neatness".

How are you going to get your wired headphones to work without buying
something else to replace the headphone jack that Apple removed on purpose?

[Frankie]

On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

> Just tested on various browsers and different machines where I'm not
> logged into my WaPo account.

Everything on the iPhone costs more, from apps to cables to repairs.

It really doesn't matter how much you get "back" when you ditch your
expensive iPhone because overall Apple products will always cost you two to
three times what Android costs when you consider Apple designed it that
way.

Why do you think Apple removed the aux port and battery charger?
It's to make you buy a new one since you have to buy something to replace
what Apple took away (and no, "any old brick" will not work correctly).

The extremely high cost of Apple ownership is why they resell their phones.

Almost nobody on Android "resells" their phone.
Most people just buy a new phone.

It's only the Apple owners who are madly trying to recoup high losses.
An example is the rip off of Apple Care which is just crazy to pay for.

Just as nobody on Android "insures" their phone (ala "Apple Care"),
only Apple owners are so afraid of their phone that they insure it.

At an extremely high yearly cost, which over time costs more than a brand
new phone would cost - but they need Apple Care because it's so expensive.

In the end, the iPhone costs so much more than Android that the Apple
owners are desperate to sell it to someone else who will defray costs.

I say let them.
Apple is laughing at iPhone owners all the way to the bank.

[Wally J]

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

> The TCO of a flagship Android versus a flagship iPhone is very close.
> The Android device will have a slightly lower initial cost but will also
> have lower trade-in value or resale value.
>
> For non-flagship devices it is probably also the case.

Steve is wrong (he lies); and he's cherry picking only flagship Androids.
The only way an iPhone costs what Android costs is if you ignore costs.

But that's pure bullshit.
Ask Steve to lay out the true lifetime costs.

He won't.
That's how I know Steve is lying and not just confused.

Steve will _never_ lay out the lifetime costs he says he's calculated.
Because he didn't calculate them.

He made them all up.
Out of nothing.

There isn't an iPhone alive that has the app power that even my _free_
Samsung Galaxy A32-5G has, and all I had to pay for it was the sales tax.

All my apps are free - so there's no cost in apps.
And T-Mobile replaced mine twice under warranty - so no repair costs.

If you purchase an iPhone, the initial sales tax alone is _more_ than I
spent on the lifetime of this phone (as all it ever needed was a case).

Yes - the free Android phone came with a high-speed charger, like most
Android phones still do - and it came with the standard aux port too.

So I can use my wired headphones without having to run out and purchase an
expensive set of headphones whose batteries constantly die on you.

And, um, no, I don't pay for a replacement-policy either, which is money
wasted that many Apple owners pay for which Steve doesn't account for.

All of Steve's numbers are completely bogus because he cherry picks the
phones and he ignores 99% of the Android phones that people actually buy.

[Alan]

On 2023-11-09 21:31, Wally J wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>
>> The TCO of a flagship Android versus a flagship iPhone is very close.
>> The Android device will have a slightly lower initial cost but will also
>> have lower trade-in value or resale value.
>>
>> For non-flagship devices it is probably also the case.
>
> Steve is wrong (he lies); and he's cherry picking only flagship Androids.
> The only way an iPhone costs what Android costs is if you ignore costs.

Do you ever proofread what you've written.

The only way A costs what B costs is if you ignore costs?

>
> But that's pure bullshit.
> Ask Steve to lay out the true lifetime costs.

This was where you were supposed to lay them out...

>
> He won't.
> That's how I know Steve is lying and not just confused.
>
> Steve will _never_ lay out the lifetime costs he says he's calculated.
> Because he didn't calculate them.
>
> He made them all up.
> Out of nothing.
>
> There isn't an iPhone alive that has the app power that even my _free_
> Samsung Galaxy A32-5G has, and all I had to pay for it was the sales tax.

Well either you're a liar or you are really, really stupid.

>
> All my apps are free - so there's no cost in apps.
> And T-Mobile replaced mine twice under warranty - so no repair costs.
>
> If you purchase an iPhone, the initial sales tax alone is _more_ than I
> spent on the lifetime of this phone (as all it ever needed was a case).
>
> Yes - the free Android phone came with a high-speed charger, like most
> Android phones still do - and it came with the standard aux port too.

It wasn't free. And the "standard aux port" (why'd you change your
naming convention for it, BTW?) is no better than the Lightning port.

>
> So I can use my wired headphones without having to run out and purchase an
> expensive set of headphones whose batteries constantly die on you.

And you can do exactly the same for Lightning headphones.

>
> And, um, no, I don't pay for a replacement-policy either, which is money
> wasted that many Apple owners pay for which Steve doesn't account for.
>
> All of Steve's numbers are completely bogus because he cherry picks the
> phones and he ignores 99% of the Android phones that people actually buy.

And yet, you don't produce any numbers at all in rebuttal.

Strange for someone who supposedly only states facts.

[Carlos E. R.]

Or the FM radio.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan]

Again:

How many people are even AWARE that their phone has an FM radio?

Again, let me help you out:

<https://www.statista.com/statistics/215515/consumers-in-selected-countries-using-their-mobile-for-fm-radio/>

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-10 17:21, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-11-10 06:42, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-10 06:04, Frankie wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Or do you think Apple's profits are off the charts because they're not
>>>>> fleecing you every time you have to buy something that is free on
>>>>> Android?
>>>>
>>>> I've never been forced to buy anything extra from Apple to keep my
>>>> Apple
>>>> things going.  Once case (above) was for "neatness".
>>>
>>> How are you going to get your wired headphones to work without buying
>>> something else to replace the headphone jack that Apple removed on
>>> purpose?
>>
>> Or the FM radio.
>>
>
> Again:
>
> How many people are even AWARE that their phone has an FM radio?

I am using it right now :-)

>
> Again, let me help you out:
>
> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/215515/consumers-in-selected-countries-using-their-mobile-for-fm-radio/>

Did you look at the column for Spain? ;-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Alan]

Yes. So what?

I'll turn it around.

I live in Canada and I have never ONCE seen anyone listening to FM radio
on a phone.

[Carlos E. R.]

But I have seen many, in my country.

Maybe you do not have a radio culture. We do.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Frank Slootweg]

That's what you get for buying iPhones!

BTW, we've never ONCE seen anyone using iMessage! Your point being?

> But I have seen many, in my country.
>
> Maybe you do not have a radio culture. We do.

<firmly sitting on hands>

What's next? USB-C charging ports? (Non) Supplied chargers? iMessage
on Android? Just use a news server with short retention and start all
over.

Can someone please pass the popcorn?

[sms]

On 11/10/2023 12:03 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-11-10 17:21, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-11-10 06:42, Carlos E. R. wrote:

<snip>

>> How many people are even AWARE that their phone has an FM radio?
>
> I am using it right now :-)

At the health club I go to they have three televisions viewable from
many of the exercise machines. They broadcast the audio on LPFM radio.
So it's useful to have a phone with an FM receiver if you want audio.
Alas, without a headphone jack, since the headphone wire acts as an
antenna, a built-in FM radio is not possible.

Bluetooth Auracast <https://www.bluetooth.com/auracast/>, when it is
deployed, will be a better option for this sort of application.

There are some RTL receivers that can connect to USB-OTG, via a USB-A to
USB-C, or a Micro-USB to USB-C adapter, so you can receive broadcast FM,
but these are unwieldy.

There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.

[Alan]

On 2023-11-10 11:34, sms wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 12:03 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-10 17:21, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-10 06:42, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> How many people are even AWARE that their phone has an FM radio?
>>
>> I am using it right now :-)
>
> At the health club I go to they have three televisions viewable from
> many of the exercise machines. They broadcast the audio on LPFM radio.
> So it's useful to have a phone with an FM receiver if you want audio.
> Alas, without a headphone jack, since the headphone wire acts as an
> antenna, a built-in FM radio is not possible.
>
> Bluetooth Auracast <https://www.bluetooth.com/auracast/>, when it is
> deployed, will be a better option for this sort of application.
>
> There are some RTL receivers that can connect to USB-OTG, via a USB-A to
> USB-C, or a Micro-USB to USB-C adapter, so you can receive broadcast FM,
> but these are unwieldy.
>
> There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.
>

That would strongly suggest it didn't sell very well...

...which strongly suggests it wasn't really something that many people
wanted to do.

Thank you for making my point.

[Carlos E. R.]

Nah, RCS doesn't support matter transfers yet. :-)


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-10 20:34, sms wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 12:03 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-11-10 17:21, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-11-10 06:42, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> How many people are even AWARE that their phone has an FM radio?
>>
>> I am using it right now :-)
>
> At the health club I go to they have three televisions viewable from
> many of the exercise machines. They broadcast the audio on LPFM radio.
> So it's useful to have a phone with an FM receiver if you want audio.
> Alas, without a headphone jack, since the headphone wire acts as an
> antenna, a built-in FM radio is not possible.
>
> Bluetooth Auracast <https://www.bluetooth.com/auracast/>, when it is
> deployed, will be a better option for this sort of application.
>
> There are some RTL receivers that can connect to USB-OTG, via a USB-A to
> USB-C, or a Micro-USB to USB-C adapter, so you can receive broadcast FM,
> but these are unwieldy.
>
> There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.

I have been listening to the radio in this room for the last two months,
using Open Radio app on a tablet (ie, via internet) and a BT speaker.

One station says "Madrid" but is is fact based in Mallorca, where they
have their own language and sometimes they speak it (and I don't
understand them).

Sometimes the server gets on a loop of some sort and sends the same
commercial a dozen times. I have to change station to another radio network.

Sometimes there are too many tiny interruptions for confort.

So today I use instead one of my phones with radio. I have yet to try to
see if it will send to the BT speaker while the headphones are connected.

Or I can use an old fully analogical radio receiver. It works, just has
a bit of a "hum" noise.



--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Chris]

How do you even "see" someone listening to FM radio?

When I had an android phone I certainly used to and it was something I
missed when changing to iphone. There are times and places where there's
poor mobile data signal yet radio would still work.

It's moot now with the growing lack of headphone jack and ubiquity of
wireless headphones there's no wire for the aerial.

[Wally J]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote

> How do you even "see" someone listening to FM radio?

You're trying to have an adult conversation with Alan Baker?

> When I had an android phone I certainly used to and it was something I
> missed when changing to iphone. There are times and places where there's
> poor mobile data signal yet radio would still work.

Having FM radio on a phone is much better than not having it on the phone.

> It's moot now with the growing lack of headphone jack and ubiquity of
> wireless headphones there's no wire for the aerial.

Most Android phones have the industry standard headphone jack; it's only
most iPhones that don't (as Apple slowly removes hardware and software
functionality from the iPhone to force users to find a way to buy it back).
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an informed consumer base.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

>> There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
>> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.
>
> I have been listening to the radio in this room for the last two months,
> using Open Radio app on a tablet (ie, via internet) and a BT speaker.

Bear in mind it's only iPhones which completely lack modern functionality
(such as portable memory slots and the industry standard 3.5mm aux jack).

FACT:
Most Android phones have them; yet no new iPhones do.

*0% of iPhones have key modern hardware capabilities - while from 66%*
*to 78% of Android phone have that key modern hardware functionality*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/vLB-bIF-P5Q/>

Certainly mine does.

The lack of modern hardware is yet another reason why you can't seriously
compare any iPhone to even the least expensive Android phone out there.
*There is no comparison possible between what an iPhone & Android phone does*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/eziBe9NRI04>
--
Apple makes those ungodly profits off of an incredibly gullible consumer.

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-10 20:32, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[...]

> > What's next? USB-C charging ports? (Non) Supplied chargers? iMessage
> > on Android? Just use a news server with short retention and start all
> > over.
> >
> > Can someone please pass the popcorn?
>
> Nah, RCS doesn't support matter transfers yet. :-)

Bummer! See, Joerg is right after all: RCS sucks!

[Alan Browne-]

On 2023-11-10 13:08, Alan wrote:

> I live in Canada and I have never ONCE seen anyone listening to FM radio
> on a phone.

If you see someone using an iPhone listening to their buds, they may
indeed be listening to a radio station feed via itunes or Web interface.

Not sure how you would see that, of course.

[Alan]

On 2023-11-11 01:33, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
>>> There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
>>> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.
>>
>> I have been listening to the radio in this room for the last two months,
>> using Open Radio app on a tablet (ie, via internet) and a BT speaker.
>
> Bear in mind it's only iPhones which completely lack modern functionality
> (such as portable memory slots and the industry standard 3.5mm aux jack).
>
> FACT:
> Most Android phones have them; yet no new iPhones do.

So your "only iPhones" is a lie.

You're... ...not bright.

[Wally J]

Alan Browne- <one...@down.net> wrote

The fact Alan hasn't "seen" anyone on Android doing anything useful doesn't
mean anything other than it's more evidence that Alan Browne is ignorant.

[david]

Using <news:uim0l3$2vtg8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms wrote:

>>> How many people are even AWARE that their phone has an FM radio?
>>
>> I am using it right now :-)
>
> At the health club I go to they have three televisions viewable from
> many of the exercise machines. They broadcast the audio on LPFM radio.
> So it's useful to have a phone with an FM receiver if you want audio.
> Alas, without a headphone jack, since the headphone wire acts as an
> antenna, a built-in FM radio is not possible.
>
> Bluetooth Auracast <https://www.bluetooth.com/auracast/>, when it is
> deployed, will be a better option for this sort of application.
>
> There are some RTL receivers that can connect to USB-OTG, via a USB-A to
> USB-C, or a Micro-USB to USB-C adapter, so you can receive broadcast FM,
> but these are unwieldy.
>
> There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.

I would like to ask if there is any advantage to the user not having these
fundamental components in a phone compared to a basic phone that has them?

Aux jacks
SD slots
FM radios

[Your Name]

Fewer holes in the case for dust and water to get inside for a start.



> FM radios

Just something else to go wrong that most people would never use anyway.

[Arno Welzel]

Alan, 2023-11-12 02:20:

Indeed. Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no
SD card slot. And the same applies to Google Pixel and many other vendors.

Just some Chinese vendors still provide this because it seems to be
important for their market. But otherwise SD cards and headphone jacks
are mostly gone.

Even the newer models of Fairphone which claim to be sustainable and
following the needs of the users do not have a headphone jack.


--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[Arno Welzel]

david, 2023-11-12 05:25:

[...]

> I would like to ask if there is any advantage to the user not having these
> fundamental components in a phone compared to a basic phone that has them?
>
> Aux jacks
> SD slots
> FM radios

Less parts which can break.

And also the devices get cheaper if vendors don't have to add parts
which are only useful for a limited number of customers.

Personally I don't miss SD cards - sometimes they started failing in
less than a year and they are usually much slower than internal memory.
And having 128 GB of storage in my current Google Pixel 6a is completely
sufficient for my needs.

Also FM radio was never important for me. And if I want to listen to the
radio while commuting to the office, I get all the radio stations online
as well. And with a data plan which provides 20 GB per month this is not
a problem at all. Yes, for people living in areas with flaky mobile
networks this may be different.

FM radio also requires a headphone jack since the cable is used as
antenna. So using that with wireless headphones is not possible at all -
but many people nowadays like to have wireless headphones. And using
USB-C headphones is not much different to having a headphone jack. In
fact with an external USB DAC you can get much better audio quality if
you are an audiophile and want to listen to your FLAC music collection
with the highest possible quality:

<https://www.audioquest.com/dacs/dragonfly/dragonfly-cobalt>

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-11-12 10:37, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Alan, 2023-11-12 02:20:
>
>> On 2023-11-11 01:33, Wally J wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>>> There was a Lightning FM radio for iPhones but it is no longer available
>>>>> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G1LGS62>.
>>>>
>>>> I have been listening to the radio in this room for the last two months,
>>>> using Open Radio app on a tablet (ie, via internet) and a BT speaker.
>>>
>>> Bear in mind it's only iPhones which completely lack modern functionality
>>> (such as portable memory slots and the industry standard 3.5mm aux jack).
>>>
>>> FACT:
>>> Most Android phones have them; yet no new iPhones do.
>>
>> So your "only iPhones" is a lie.
>
> Indeed. Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no
> SD card slot. And the same applies to Google Pixel and many other vendors.
>
> Just some Chinese vendors still provide this because it seems to be
> important for their market. But otherwise SD cards and headphone jacks
> are mostly gone.

Not true.

Motorola has them, for instance.

>
> Even the newer models of Fairphone which claim to be sustainable and
> following the needs of the users do not have a headphone jack.

Fairphones are not known for being feature rich, precisely.


--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Wally J]

Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote

> Indeed. Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no
> SD card slot. And the same applies to Google Pixel and many other vendors.

WTF? You're just wrong. You're so wrong you're just making wrong shit up.

The point is if you want these things, you can easily find Androids with
them - but not iPhones because the iPhone is crippled in hardware features.

Hell, all my _free_ Samsung Galaxy A32-5G's (I got five!) came with an
a. Industry standard aux jack
b. Industry standard sd slot
c. Correctly sized industry standard fast charger in the box

And, besides, _most_ Samsung's have the aux jack or sd slot or charger in
the box, just like most Android phones have them too.

It's mainly only the iPhones which are crippled in lacking all three.

Apple makes ungodly profits by removing basic functionality so you are
limited in how you have to buy it back - which the _high end_ Samsung's
have moved to (because their customer can afford to waste their money).

Samsung & Google can afford to make a few high-end models that they can
_copy_ Apple's predatory practices of removing functionality - but the vast
majority of Android phones have these things.

The iPhone is crippled in all three (sd slot, aux & charger in the box).
But the fact remains most Android (including Samsung) phones have them.

[Charlie]

On this Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:00:33 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> Fewer holes in the case for dust and water to get inside for a start.
>
>> FM radios

Are the IP ratings higher for all the phones that lack the normal ports?

> Just something else to go wrong that most people would never use anyway.

What goes wrong with the normal smartphone FM radio on most Android phones?

[Larry Wolff]

On 11/12/2023 4:48 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:

> Less parts which can break.
>
> And also the devices get cheaper if vendors don't have to add parts
> which are only useful for a limited number of customers.
>
> Personally I don't miss SD cards - sometimes they started failing in
> less than a year and they are usually much slower than internal memory.
> And having 128 GB of storage in my current Google Pixel 6a is completely
> sufficient for my needs.
>
> Also FM radio was never important for me. And if I want to listen to the
> radio while commuting to the office, I get all the radio stations online
> as well. And with a data plan which provides 20 GB per month this is not
> a problem at all. Yes, for people living in areas with flaky mobile
> networks this may be different.
>
> FM radio also requires a headphone jack since the cable is used as
> antenna. So using that with wireless headphones is not possible at all -
> but many people nowadays like to have wireless headphones. And using
> USB-C headphones is not much different to having a headphone jack. In
> fact with an external USB DAC you can get much better audio quality if
> you are an audiophile and want to listen to your FLAC music collection
> with the highest possible quality:
>
> <https://www.audioquest.com/dacs/dragonfly/dragonfly-cobalt>

Which means by definition, if it's missing these important hardware
capabilities, it's a less functional device than one that has them.

[Wolf Greenblatt]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:58:25 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>> Just some Chinese vendors still provide this because it seems to be
>> important for their market. But otherwise SD cards and headphone jacks
>> are mostly gone.
>
> Not true.
>
> Motorola has them, for instance.

Not only Motorola. But also most Android phones have them.

Any phone with them can do more than any phone without them.
And any phone without them does less than any phone with them.

[sms]

On 11/11/2023 10:25 PM, david wrote:

<snip>

> I would like to ask if there is any advantage to the user not having these
> fundamental components in a phone compared to a basic phone that has them?
>
> Aux jacks
> SD slots
> FM radios

The lack of these features reduces the cost to the manufacturer in
components, assembly cost, and repair costs.

Perhaps a tiny portion of the savings are passed on to the user in the
form of a minuscule price reduction, but probably not since that's not
the way manufacturer's set prices.

For Apple, there are big advantages in omitting those features (other
than the FM radio which SOCs in early iPhones had). It encourages the
sale of phones with more internal memory. It results in more sales of
Airpods.

When data was very expensive, an FM radio was a useful feature to listen
to music without consuming data. It's still useful in certain situations
such as when natural disasters take down the cellular networks and to
receive LPFM broadcasts in some venues. I wonder how many people have a
battery powered radio at home anymore.

[AJL]

On 11/12/2023 2:48 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:

> using USB-C headphones is not much different to having a headphone
> jack. In fact with an external USB DAC you can get much better audio
> quality if you are an audiophile and want to listen to your FLAC

> music collection with the highest possible quality...

Agreed. On all my Android devices (including my phone) that have both
USB-C and headphone holes, when using the same headphones the audio is
much better using the USB-C port. The PITA of using a dongle is well
worth it IMO...

[Frank Slootweg]

Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
[...]

> Indeed. Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no
> SD card slot. And the same applies to Google Pixel and many other vendors.

Make that *some* Samsung Android devices, probably mainly/only the
high-end models.

My Galaxy A51 has headphone jack, SD card slot and FM radio. And even
the newest replacement (A54G) still has a SD card slot (USB-C earjack,
no details about FM radio).

So over time these features may be phased out, but rather slowly and
the SD card slot is probably the last to go. (The SD card slot has
become less important because of larger and relatively cheaper Internal
Storage sizes, but not unimportant, especially not at the low end.)

[...]

[AJL]

On 11/12/2023 8:20 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

>> Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no SD

>> card slot...

> Make that *some* Samsung Android devices, probably mainly/only the
> high-end models. My Galaxy A51 has headphone jack, SD card slot and
> FM radio.

My Galaxy S10+ was a high end model and it has no FM radio.

> And even the newest replacement (A54G) still has a SD card slot
> (USB-C earjack, no details about FM radio).

But my phone does have the slot and earphone hole which I seldom use. I
won't miss them when they're gone from my future phone. However I still
like using them on (MOST of-see below) my other Android toys...

> So over time these features may be phased out, but rather slowly and
> the SD card slot is probably the last to go. (The SD card slot has
> become less important because of larger and relatively cheaper
> Internal Storage sizes, but not unimportant, especially not at the
> low end.)

Yup. My latest Lenovo Chrome tablet has ONLY USB-C. No other slots or
holes. Probably the coming thing.

BTW starting last night my Android Usenet apps (Groundhog, PhoNews, and
NNTP NewsReader) ALL stopped working on ALL my Android and Chrome
devices with Eternal-September. All say they cannot connect. But yet ES
still works Ok with this Windows T-Bird. Just tried it again, and still
out. Weird...

[Arno Welzel]

Carlos E. R., 2023-11-12 13:58:

> On 2023-11-12 10:37, Arno Welzel wrote:

[...]

>> Indeed. Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no
>> SD card slot. And the same applies to Google Pixel and many other vendors.
>>
>> Just some Chinese vendors still provide this because it seems to be
>> important for their market. But otherwise SD cards and headphone jacks
>> are mostly gone.
>
> Not true.
>
> Motorola has them, for instance.

So what? I said "mostly" and not "completely". This means: most vendors
don't add headphone jacks any longer. This is still true, even if
Motorola still adds them.

[Arno Welzel]

Wolf Greenblatt, 2023-11-12 14:19:

What exactly besides using a wired headset without an integrated
USB-DAC? I have a wired USB-C-headset for my Google Pixel 6a which works
fine and in the handling there is not really a difference. Besides that
I also find my Shokz OpenComm bluetooth headset very useful - not
covering my ears at all and people understand me very good an clear. If
needed, I also have a USB-C-adapter for analog connections if I ever
need to connect my phone to an amplifier to listen to music. And in this
case I also have *much* better audio quality when using uncompressed
audio files.

Yes I know, people argue, that charging in parallel while listening to
music needs an additional adapter - but how often is this relevant for
the majority of users?

JFTR: FM radio is not always included just because a device has a

[Arno Welzel]

Charlie, 2023-11-12 14:13:

> On this Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:00:33 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
>> Fewer holes in the case for dust and water to get inside for a start.
>>
>>> FM radios
>
> Are the IP ratings higher for all the phones that lack the normal ports?

It is easier to achieve with one less jack opening in the case. But of
course it is also possible with headphone jacks. My old Sony Z3 Compact
was also water proof and it had a headphone jack. But back then it was
also not the cheapest one compared to other devices with similar hardware.

[Arno Welzel]

Larry Wolff, 2023-11-12 14:18:

> On 11/12/2023 4:48 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
>
>> Less parts which can break.
>>
>> And also the devices get cheaper if vendors don't have to add parts
>> which are only useful for a limited number of customers.

[...]

> Which means by definition, if it's missing these important hardware
> capabilities, it's a less functional device than one that has them.

By definition yes. But by definition a modern car does not have a steam
engine and can not run on coal and water. So it is a less functional
vehicle as well ;-)

[Arno Welzel]

Frank Slootweg, 2023-11-12 16:20:

> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Indeed. Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no
>> SD card slot. And the same applies to Google Pixel and many other vendors.
>
> Make that *some* Samsung Android devices, probably mainly/only the
> high-end models.
>
> My Galaxy A51 has headphone jack, SD card slot and FM radio. And even
> the newest replacement (A54G) still has a SD card slot (USB-C earjack,
> no details about FM radio).

The A51 it is more than three years old. The A54 does not have a
headphone jack any longer and if you want to use the SD card you have to
give up a SIM slot for that - probably because it was cheaper just to
keep the slot as it is as long as Samsung can not ditch this completely
when using eSIM only in the future.

[Frank Slootweg]

AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 8:20 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>
> >> Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no SD
> >> card slot...
>
> > Make that *some* Samsung Android devices, probably mainly/only the
> > high-end models. My Galaxy A51 has headphone jack, SD card slot and
> > FM radio.
>
> My Galaxy S10+ was a high end model and it has no FM radio.

Are you sure?

On my A51, the app is not on any of the normal app pages/screen, only
in the 'Samsung' folder (together with other Samsung apps like My
Files, Internet, Smart Switch, etc.) and it's called just 'Radio', not
'FM Radio', so it's quite hidden.

> > And even the newest replacement (A54G) still has a SD card slot
> > (USB-C earjack, no details about FM radio).
>
> But my phone does have the slot and earphone hole which I seldom use. I
> won't miss them when they're gone from my future phone. However I still
> like using them on (MOST of-see below) my other Android toys...

Sofar, I use none of the three (headphone jack, SD card slot and FM
radio), but it's nice to know they're there, just in case.

[...]

[Arno Welzel]

sms, 2023-11-12 15:30:

[...]

> When data was very expensive, an FM radio was a useful feature to listen
> to music without consuming data. It's still useful in certain situations
> such as when natural disasters take down the cellular networks and to
> receive LPFM broadcasts in some venues. I wonder how many people have a
> battery powered radio at home anymore.

I wonder if people would even know how to use the FM radio in there
phone. And besides that - with a natural disaster a fragile device which
only lasts 20-40 hours with one battery charge is not that helpful anyway.

[Arno Welzel]

AJL, 2023-11-12 17:00:

> On 11/12/2023 8:20 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Arno Welzel <use...@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>
>>> Samsung Android devices don't have a headphone jack and also no SD
>>> card slot...
>
>> Make that *some* Samsung Android devices, probably mainly/only the
>> high-end models. My Galaxy A51 has headphone jack, SD card slot and
>> FM radio.
>
> My Galaxy S10+ was a high end model and it has no FM radio.

It has - but only in certain areas (USA & Canada only)

<https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s10-9536.php>

So likely just a firmware controlled feature.

[AJL]

On 11/12/2023 9:54 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>> My Galaxy S10+ was a high end model and it has no FM radio.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> On my A51, the app is not on any of the normal app pages/screen, only
> in the 'Samsung' folder (together with other Samsung apps like My
> Files, Internet, Smart Switch, etc.) and it's called just 'Radio',
> not 'FM Radio', so it's quite hidden.

According to Dr Google My S10+ DOES have an FM radio built in but did
not come with an app to use it. I tried the suggested Next Radio app in
the below link but after installation it says it won't work with my
phone. Since I wouldn't use the FM radio anyway that's as far as I'm
going to take it. Too much hassle just for my curiosity. And this
sparked a very faint memory of me trying this once before some years ago
when the phone was new. Obviously I was unsuccessful then either...

So I'll modify my statement to: My S10+ didn't come with a working FM
radio...

<https://www.greenbot.com/galaxy-s10-how-listen-to-fm-radio/>

>> But my phone does have the slot and earphone hole which I seldom
>> use. I won't miss them when they're gone from my future phone.
>> However I still like using them on (MOST of-see below) my other
>> Android toys...

> Sofar, I use none of the three (headphone jack, SD card slot and FM
> radio), but it's nice to know they're there, just in case.

Yup. Like a fire extinguisher...

[AJL]

AJL <noe...@none.com> Wrote in message:

> BTW starting last night my Android Usenet apps

> (Groundhog, PhoNews, andNNTP NewsReader)

> ALL stopped working on ALL my Android and

> Chromedevices with Eternal-September. All say
> they cannot connect. But yet ESstill works Ok

> with this Windows T-Bird. Just tried it again,
> and still out. Weird...

Everything started working again for all the
newsreaders and devices. Mystery why
Androids quit and not Windows. This newsreader
Is usually bad in posting but lets see if I can
edit it out. Am using NNTP NewsReader on
an Amazon tablet...