Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android

[sms]

I also added this to the document
<https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> on page 2.

Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android

There’s often a debate about the total cost of ownership (TCO) of
Android versus iOS phones. There are many things to consider when trying
to evaluate TCO. Some people want to compare a $200 mid-range Android
device to a $1500 flagship iPhone but of course such comparisons are
ludicrous.

● Compare Devices in the Same Market Segment. It’s important to
compare, no pun intended, apples to apples. There are no low-end
iPhones, Apple competes only in the mid-range and flagship segments. The
average selling price of Android devices will obviously be much lower
than the average selling price of iPhones because of the huge quantity
of low-end and mid-range Android devices being sold all over the world.
So when evaluating TCO you want to compare flagships to flagships and
mid-range to mid-range. Don’t compare a $100 Android device to any iPhone!

● MSRP versus Street Price. Unlocked iPhones purchased directly from
Apple are not discounted (except “friends and family” discounts). There
are no student, educator, first responder, veteran, or military discounts.

By contrast, unlocked Samsung phones purchased directly from Samsung
have a lot of discounts available, as well as referral code discounts.
They are usually at least 5% off MSRP. Samsung often runs promotions
that offer additional discounts. Hence, the initial cost of Samsung
flagship device will usually be a little less than the initial cost of a
comparable iPhone, but there is no massive price difference.

Google often offers amazing discounts, and ridiculously high trade-in
values, on their Pixel devices, which definitely brings the TCO of a
flagship Pixel device below that of a flagship iPhone. Google is heavily
subsidizing Pixel devices which sell in very low volumes. When you don’t
care about making money on the hardware you’re selling it’s easy to sell
it at a low price!

● Carrier Discounts. Carriers offer discounts, or free phones, in
exchange for de-facto contracts. You’re required to finance the phone
for x number of months and they offer a monthly discount off of the plan
cost.

● Trade in Value. Both Apple and Android manufacturers offer discounts
for trade-ins, but Android makers tend to inflate the value of trade-ins
in order to offer a discount without directly cutting the price.

● Resale Value. If you choose to resell your phone yourself, iPhones
retain much more value than Android.

● Accessory Cost. Because iPhones are sold in such huge quantities for
each model, model specific accessories like cases, screen protectors,
and camera protectors, are more widely available at lower prices.

● Longevity. The average time between replacement is longer for iPhones
so the cost per month goes down.

● Repairability. It’s a lot easier to get an iPhone repaired than it is
to get an Android phone repaired, when it comes to common repairs like
batteries and glass. If your iPhone needs a new battery or new screen
glass, you can get this done at an Apple Store. For an Android device it
likely means sending the phone into the manufacturer for repair unless
it's a very popular model that a third-party repair place is able to fix.

The bottom line is that despite the lower trade-in or resale value of a
flagship Android device, the slightly lower initial cost of a flagship
Android device makes the total cost of ownership about the same as a
flagship iPhone device, but in rare cases, like with the Google Pixel 7
Pro, because Google heavily subsidizes the purchase of Pixel devices,
the TCO of an Android device is indeed less. For those users that are
happy with a low-end device, those Android phones can be had for well
under $100 and work acceptably well for some basic functions, though
they will have low-quality cameras, low-quality screens, and slow
processors.

References
---------------
● Why iPhone has better resale value than Android
<https://www.igeeksblog.com/why-iphone-has-better-resale-value-than-android/>
● No, iPhones Aren’t More Expensive Than Android Phones
<https://www.howtogeek.com/776381/no-iphones-arent-more-expensive-than-android-phones/>
● iOS vs Android - Why NOT buying an Apple iPhone will end up costing
you
<https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1250404/Apple-iPhone-iOS-Android-trade-in-values-Samsung-LG-Sony>
● iPhones Vs. Android: Which Phones Hold Their Value Better Explained
<https://screenrant.com/iphone-vs-android-smartphones-long-term-value-comparison-explained/>
● iPhone still holds value far better than other smartphones
<https://www.applemust.com/iphone-still-holds-value-far-better-than-other-smartphones/>

[nospam]

In article <toq5cr$13ol7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Thereąs often a debate about the total cost of ownership (TCO) of

> Android versus iOS phones. There are many things to consider when trying
> to evaluate TCO. Some people want to compare a $200 mid-range Android
> device to a $1500 flagship iPhone but of course such comparisons are
> ludicrous.

true, yet you do exactly that for all sorts of comparisons to suit your
narrative.



>
> ? MSRP versus Street Price. Unlocked iPhones purchased directly from
> Apple are not discounted (except łfriends and family˛ discounts). There

> are no student, educator, first responder, veteran, or military discounts.

that's another one of your highly disingenuous claims.

most phones, android, ios or even dumbphones, are *not* sold directly
from the manufacturer. instead, they are mostly sold at carrier stores,
including carrier resellers within big box stores and carrier web
sites.

there are all sorts of discounts available for both iphones and android
phones, including for free (under contract).

discounts are often time-limited and may not always be available, such
as a holiday promo, or an introductory special. in some cases, there
are eligibility requirements, such as being a new customer to a
particular carrier, over a certain age, etc.

as for apple's friends and family discount, that's only available for
apple employees who are interested in offering it to others. it's also
not unlimited, so they are likely to be very selective as to whom they
offer it.

further, most people finance their phones, so the full price is largely
irrelevant. an extra few bucks a month gets them a fancier phone.

> By contrast, unlocked Samsung phones purchased directly from Samsung
> have a lot of discounts available, as well as referral code discounts.

...

> Google often offers amazing discounts, and ridiculously high trade-in
> values, on their Pixel devices,

only because they don't sell well on their own.

discounts are *needed* to move inventory.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2022-12-31 21:17, sms wrote:
> I also added this to the document
> <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> on page 2.

Please do not use shortened URLs on Usenet.

It is:

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE/edit>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[sms]

Actually it's
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>

[Carlos E.R.]

Well, not according to <https://www.expandurl.net/>

There are three redirects:

3 (hide details)


<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE>

<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JznrWfGJDA8CYVfjSnPTwfVy8-gAC0kPyaApuJTcUNE/>

[mike]

On 31-12-2022 15:17 sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features>, on page 2,
> "Cost of Ownership -- iPhone Versus Android."

I looked at that cost of ownership section which has a few problems.
You need to fix some or all of these problems to keep your believability.

The first thing you say is comparing a $200 Android TCO to that of a $1500
"flagship iPhone" is "ludicrous" but what you don't seem to say (or even to
understand) is that there are plenty of people who do buy that $200 Android
who do therefore get a total cost of ownership that's perfectly reasonable.

So it's your assumptions which are "ludicrous", particularly given you are
trying to say that total cost of ownership is less for that $1500 iPhone.

Then you repeat your ludicrous argument in your first bullet item when you
say that people who care about TCO can't consider that $200 Android phone.

What you've done in your first bullet item is exclude everyone who does
care about TCO so that you can then make your spurious case for iPhone TCO.

In your second bullet item, you talk about "MSRP" and "Street Price" but
what you don't seem to comprehend is that you need both for valid
statistics especially since very few people want the hassle of dealing with
finding, researching, and then complying with all the terms and conditions.

Without the MSRP, your calculations are incorrect for most people.

Then you go on to carrier discounts and trade ins, which complicate things
because they vary appreciably and most people just buy the phone outright.

Almost nobody but people like you bother with the trade in hassle, and most
people don't change their carrier plans just to get a complicated discount.

All your advice assumes the person wants the terrible hassles that you do.
Another example is you talk of resale value but you don't realize almost
nobody sells their phone. Most people put it in a drawer or give it away.

Therefore the only realistic "resale value" you can possibly use is zero.
Anything else is you simply cooking the numbers to skew your final result.

Likewise for the resale value of the specific accessories like the case,
protection screen, cable and charger because nobody wants that stuff used.

Your "Accessory Cost" bullet item is just wrong. It's not even close.
You don't seem to understand even one bullet item of what you wrote.

The same goes for "Longevity". It's bull shit what you wrote.
Completely unsupported bull shit.

Again, your "Repairability" is unsupported bull shit for the next bullet.
Not a single statement you made is supported with any real numbers.

What you should do is list two phones and list their prices at the Apple
store and at the store of whatever major carrier you use for Android.

Pick the latest iPhone and the latest Samsung Galaxy & be done with it.

[Chris Schram]

On 2022-12-31, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Total Cost of Ownership-iPhone Versus Android

The resale value of an iPhone/Android is the same as that of a goat turd.

Most people buy a new phone on Amazon or Ebay or from Google or at a big
box store or at the carrier's store or at Costco or Target or Walmart.

Most of those outlets do not offer a trade in, and of those that do, many
strings are attached which limit greatly your choices & add terms to your
contract that almost nobody but the most frugal will endure as the hassle.

Therefore the only sensible resale value for iPhone or Android is $0.00.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-02, Chris Schram <chri...@me.com> wrote:
> The resale value of an iPhone/Android is the same as that of a goat turd.
>
> Most people buy a new phone on Amazon or Ebay or from Google or at a big
> box store or at the carrier's store or at Costco or Target or Walmart.
>
> Most of those outlets do not offer a trade in, and of those that do, many
> strings are attached which limit greatly your choices & add terms to your
> contract that almost nobody but the most frugal will endure as the hassle.
>
> Therefore the only sensible resale value for iPhone or Android is $0.00.

The resale value if you sell that phone on the open market is also $0.00.

If there's someone selling their phones, the hassle is even greater than
that of a trade in as who is going to invite a dozen different strangers
into their home to look at the phone to sell it to them and then bargain on
the prices for that phone?

Nobody.

Who is going to stand all day in a parking lot with a sign in front of them
saying they're selling their old phone and does anyone want to buy it?

Nobody.

Who is going to create an account just to sell it on Amazon or Ebay or
Craigslist who only has one phone every five years to sell, and then who
has to ship it and then deal with any complaints if it doesn't work?

Nobody.

The only sensible resale value for any phone, Android or iPhone, is zero.

[David Taylor]

On 02/01/2023 20:35, Chris Schram wrote:
> Most people buy a new phone on Amazon or Ebay or from Google or at a big
> box store or at the carrier's store or at Costco or Target or Walmart.
>
> Most of those outlets do not offer a trade in, and of those that do, many
> strings are attached which limit greatly your choices & add terms to your
> contract that almost nobody but the most frugal will endure as the hassle.

Google do offer trade-in refunds, and the system works well. No contract, no
terms.

--
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

[Mayayana]

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

|I also added this to the document
| <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> on page 2.
|
| Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android
|

I agree with Carlos. I just ignore shortened URLs. Then again,
I mostly ignore Google Docs, too. I find it disturbing that people
are treating GD as the Internet. And often I can't figure out how
to get the file because it's encrusted with script. There isn't a
proper webpage with a download link. Google want you glued
into their web in order to see their page.

If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?
Extra points for matching up, especially since Apple likes to
try to break compatibility. What apps do you use? Is there a difference
on the two systems? Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
service to keep a copy of your system online? Do you use a cellphone
constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?

iPhones are also a fashion statement. They
tell people, "I'm a prime mating candidate who can afford to blow
thousands of dollars on a cellphone." I know people who like to
pull out their iPhone to gloat over its encyclopedia functionality,
asking Siri about the calories in potatoes vs pasta in the middle
of dinner.

I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
It's a portable phone booth. I got a TCL Android Tracfone for $40.
Buying service costs $20 every 3 months. It's a nice phone and very
functional if I want to go online with Firefox, which I needed to do
recently. But for a hotshot executive who's constantly texting, I
would imagine $1,500 for an iPhone, and maybe $120/month for
service (?), might seem a bargain.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.01.23 um 14:20 schrieb Mayayana:

> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.

It is obvious that you have no clue or concept of mobile communication.
Why the heck are you wasting then other people's time with such lengthy
nothing?

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[nospam]

In article <tp1a29$24raf$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

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

> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?

that helps, since all purchased apps will work under a family plan,
thereby avoiding each person needing to buy their own copy.

> Extra points for matching up, especially since Apple likes to
> try to break compatibility.

they do not.

> What apps do you use? Is there a difference
> on the two systems?

most apps are available for both, except that they would need to be
purchased separately if one person had an iphone and the other had
android.

some apps are only available on one platform, mostly iphones, because
that's where developers focus their efforts, for a variety of reasons.

> Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
> service to keep a copy of your system online?

the system cannot be kept online for reasons that should be obvious.

user data is entirely on the phone. it can *also* be backed up to the
cloud, however, that is not required. it is entirely up to the user
which data, if any, is in the cloud.

there are valid reasons to do that, as there are not to do that. again,
users have a choice.

> Do you use a cellphone
> constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?

no. batteries last 1-2 days in typical use.

of course, there are extreme edge cases where it might not last a day,
in which case, a battery case works well, or recharge midday. for those
who are often in a vehicle (e.g., uber/lyft driver), get a car charger.

> iPhones are also a fashion statement. They
> tell people, "I'm a prime mating candidate who can afford to blow
> thousands of dollars on a cellphone."

except that iphones start at a fraction of that, as little as free with
various promotions.

> I know people who like to
> pull out their iPhone to gloat over its encyclopedia functionality,
> asking Siri about the calories in potatoes vs pasta in the middle
> of dinner.

apparently you know some interesting people.

> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.

then you're not in a position to comment on smartphone usage patterns.

> It's a portable phone booth. I got a TCL Android Tracfone for $40.
> Buying service costs $20 every 3 months. It's a nice phone and very
> functional if I want to go online with Firefox, which I needed to do
> recently. But for a hotshot executive who's constantly texting, I
> would imagine $1,500 for an iPhone, and maybe $120/month for
> service (?), might seem a bargain.

that's quite the imagination.

tracfone sells an iphone se for $189, which could be used with the same
service plan you currently have.

<https://www.tracfone.com/phone/apple-iphone-se-64gb-prepaid>

that's a *far* cry from the prices you seem to think apply.

[Chris]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>
> |I also added this to the document
> | <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> on page 2.
> |
> | Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android
> |
>
> I agree with Carlos. I just ignore shortened URLs. Then again,
> I mostly ignore Google Docs, too. I find it disturbing that people
> are treating GD as the Internet. And often I can't figure out how
> to get the file because it's encrusted with script. There isn't a
> proper webpage with a download link. Google want you glued
> into their web in order to see their page.
>
> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?

Also family members. It's hard to be the only family member that isn't on
the same OS as everyone else.

> Extra points for matching up, especially since Apple likes to
> try to break compatibility. What apps do you use? Is there a difference
> on the two systems? Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
> service to keep a copy of your system online? Do you use a cellphone
> constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?

Valuing all those things in a TCO calculation will be difficult.

> iPhones are also a fashion statement. They
> tell people, "I'm a prime mating candidate who can afford to blow
> thousands of dollars on a cellphone."

You don't know how much an iphone is, do you?

> I know people who like to
> pull out their iPhone to gloat over its encyclopedia functionality,
> asking Siri about the calories in potatoes vs pasta in the middle
> of dinner.

No-one gloats with Siri. It's the worst of the personal assistants.

> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
> It's a portable phone booth. I got a TCL Android Tracfone for $40.
> Buying service costs $20 every 3 months. It's a nice phone and very
> functional if I want to go online with Firefox, which I needed to do
> recently. But for a hotshot executive who's constantly texting, I
> would imagine $1,500 for an iPhone, and maybe $120/month for
> service (?), might seem a bargain.

Just because someone may have an expensive phone doesn't mean they need a
ridiculously expensive contract. I pay £6 pm with mine.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.01.23 um 18:05 schrieb Chris:

> Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
>> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?
>
> Also family members. It's hard to be the only family member that isn't on
> the same OS as everyone else.

*ROTFLSTC*
Short Messages, Telegram, Signal, Threema and even WhatsApp exist.
This is no issue at all.
A family that wants to communicate can communicate irrespective of the
platform.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.01.23 um 18:05 schrieb Chris:
> Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>> iPhones are also a fashion statement. They
>> tell people, "I'm a prime mating candidate who can afford to blow
>> thousands of dollars on a cellphone."
>
> You don't know how much an iphone is, do you?
>
>> I know people who like to
>> pull out their iPhone to gloat over its encyclopedia functionality,
>> asking Siri about the calories in potatoes vs pasta in the middle
>> of dinner.
>
> No-one gloats with Siri. It's the worst of the personal assistants.
>
>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>> It's a portable phone booth. I got a TCL Android Tracfone for $40.
>> Buying service costs $20 every 3 months. It's a nice phone and very
>> functional if I want to go online with Firefox, which I needed to do
>> recently. But for a hotshot executive who's constantly texting, I
>> would imagine $1,500 for an iPhone, and maybe $120/month for
>> service (?), might seem a bargain.
>
> Just because someone may have an expensive phone doesn't mean they need a
> ridiculously expensive contract. I pay £6 pm with mine.

In the context of this group Mayayana is a badmouthing Troll who has no
understanding of the reality.

[nospam]

In article <tp1n8m$264t4$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> No-one gloats with Siri. It's the worst of the personal assistants.

bixby says hello.

[Rod Speed]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 07:48:24 +1100, Chris Schram <chri...@me.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-02, Chris Schram <chri...@me.com> wrote:
>> The resale value of an iPhone/Android is the same as that of a goat
>> turd.
>>
>> Most people buy a new phone on Amazon or Ebay or from Google or at a big
>> box store or at the carrier's store or at Costco or Target or Walmart.
>>
>> Most of those outlets do not offer a trade in, and of those that do,
>> many
>> strings are attached which limit greatly your choices & add terms to
>> your
>> contract that almost nobody but the most frugal will endure as the
>> hassle.
>>
>> Therefore the only sensible resale value for iPhone or Android is $0.00.
>
> The resale value if you sell that phone on the open market is also $0.00.

Bullshit.

> If there's someone selling their phones, the hassle is even greater than
> that of a trade in as who is going to invite a dozen different strangers
> into their home to look at the phone to sell it to them and then bargain
> on
> the prices for that phone?

> Nobody.

Plenty flog it on a facebook buy swap sell group.

> Who is going to stand all day in a parking lot with a sign in front of
> them
> saying they're selling their old phone and does anyone want to buy it?

> Nobody.

Plenty flog it on a facebook buy swap sell group.

> Who is going to create an account just to sell it on Amazon or Ebay or
> Craigslist who only has one phone every five years to sell, and then who
> has to ship it and then deal with any complaints if it doesn't work?

> Nobody.

More bullshit.

> The only sensible resale value for any phone, Android or iPhone, is zero.

Only for fools like you.

[Rod Speed]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 04:05:26 +1100, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>
>> |I also added this to the document
>> | <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features> on page 2.
>> |
>> | Total Cost of Ownership—iPhone Versus Android
>> |
>>
>> I agree with Carlos. I just ignore shortened URLs. Then again,
>> I mostly ignore Google Docs, too. I find it disturbing that people
>> are treating GD as the Internet. And often I can't figure out how
>> to get the file because it's encrusted with script. There isn't a
>> proper webpage with a download link. Google want you glued
>> into their web in order to see their page.
>>
>> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
>> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?

> Also family members. It's hard to be the only family member that isn't on
> the same OS as everyone else.

Bullshit.

>> Extra points for matching up, especially since Apple likes to
>> try to break compatibility. What apps do you use? Is there a difference
>> on the two systems? Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
>> service to keep a copy of your system online? Do you use a cellphone
>> constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?
>
> Valuing all those things in a TCO calculation will be difficult.
>
>> iPhones are also a fashion statement. They
>> tell people, "I'm a prime mating candidate who can afford to blow
>> thousands of dollars on a cellphone."
>
> You don't know how much an iphone is, do you?
>
>> I know people who like to
>> pull out their iPhone to gloat over its encyclopedia functionality,
>> asking Siri about the calories in potatoes vs pasta in the middle
>> of dinner.
>
> No-one gloats with Siri. It's the worst of the personal assistants.

Bullshit. It tells you the temperature of the Hue movement sensors,
none of the others do that.

Siri is also much more accurate with the external temperature
because the other two lag considerably when its changing fast.

Alexa stupidly decides that you are being silly when you say 'Alexa date'

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Google do offer trade-in refunds, and the system works well. No contract, no
> terms.

The whole concept is bogus and as a result, it has no meaning at all.

At the lower end of prices, the iPhone doesn't even try to participate.

People at that lower end buy based on price which is what you're intimating
here in that low end people let the price determine what phone they buy.

When you try to get a "good deal", that "good deal" determines which phone
you purchase, which is what people on the low end do - not the high end.

People at the higher end generally let the phone determine what they buy.
Not the price.

Then if the original poster limits himself to only the top tier of both
categories, the one thing that top tier still does NOT care about is TCO.

Even if one or two people who buy in the top tier like he claims they do
did care about TCO, in order to obtain any one discount like that you
mention, you have to let the discount determine what phone you will buy.

That's NOT how people buy phones in the top tier.

Not only are people who buy phones in the top tier going to let some
complicated discount process determine the expensive phone they will own
for the next few years, but they're not going to go through the bother.

Likewise, they're not going to stand out on a street corner with a sign
around their neck frantically trying to sell the old phone at high prices.

Everything is wrong about the concept the original poster is laying out.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
>> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?
>
> that helps, since all purchased apps will work under a family plan,
> thereby avoiding each person needing to buy their own copy.

If the concept is total cost of ownership, you can't assume that the only
way that you can get a good value is to be forced into signing up for a
family plan, nor that you have to use Google Fi or change your carrier and
then drop the contract the moment you can or that you let the "best deal"
you can find determine the phone you are buying if you're in the high end.

>
>> Extra points for matching up, especially since Apple likes to
>> try to break compatibility.
>
> they do not.

If the TCO is going to work out, the math has to work out on a single phone
bought at the manufacturer's price at the manufacturer's store (if that
exists) or on the Internet without all these special terms and conditions.

>
>> What apps do you use? Is there a difference
>> on the two systems?
>
> most apps are available for both, except that they would need to be
> purchased separately if one person had an iphone and the other had
> android.

It's likely that for high end users who care more about their time than
finding a cheaper app that the total cost of iPhone apps are greater than
the total cost of Android apps at the high end customer's perspective.

>
> some apps are only available on one platform, mostly iphones, because
> that's where developers focus their efforts, for a variety of reasons.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind the whales are mostly iPhone owners.

>
>> Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
>> service to keep a copy of your system online?
>
> the system cannot be kept online for reasons that should be obvious.
>
> user data is entirely on the phone. it can *also* be backed up to the
> cloud, however, that is not required. it is entirely up to the user
> which data, if any, is in the cloud.
>
> there are valid reasons to do that, as there are not to do that. again,
> users have a choice.

What does backing up user data have to do with total cost of ownership?

>
>> Do you use a cellphone
>> constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?
>
> no. batteries last 1-2 days in typical use.

More expensive phones tend to be larger and larger more expensive phones
tend to have larger batteries but iPhones tend to have smaller batteries
than equivalently sized and priced Android phones (almost always actually).

>
> of course, there are extreme edge cases where it might not last a day,
> in which case, a battery case works well, or recharge midday. for those
> who are often in a vehicle (e.g., uber/lyft driver), get a car charger.

This total cost of ownership calculation should include the cost of the
appropriate charger and cables and all common accessories purchased at the
manufacturer's store in order to have any merit as a general statement.

>
>> iPhones are also a fashion statement. They
>> tell people, "I'm a prime mating candidate who can afford to blow
>> thousands of dollars on a cellphone."
>
> except that iphones start at a fraction of that, as little as free with
> various promotions.

Is this discussion limited to high end phones or does it cover all phones?
If this TCO discussion covers all phones then the iPhone loses instantly.

At the lower end, people tend to let the "as little as free with various
promotions" dictate their choice of personal phone for the next few years.

But at the higher end, people tend to make the merits of the phone dictate
what phone they will own for the next few years - not an awkward discount.

>
>> I know people who like to
>> pull out their iPhone to gloat over its encyclopedia functionality,
>> asking Siri about the calories in potatoes vs pasta in the middle
>> of dinner.
>
> apparently you know some interesting people.

It's funny to watch the Galaxy advertisements making fun of the teens
standing outside the Apple store who only care about the iPhone style.

>
>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>
> then you're not in a position to comment on smartphone usage patterns.

If the discussion is about TCO and if the apps play a role then it has to
be first established how much the Android apps cost versus iPhone apps.

Nobody established that so any TCO discussion without that data is bogus.

>
>> It's a portable phone booth. I got a TCL Android Tracfone for $40.
>> Buying service costs $20 every 3 months. It's a nice phone and very
>> functional if I want to go online with Firefox, which I needed to do
>> recently. But for a hotshot executive who's constantly texting, I
>> would imagine $1,500 for an iPhone, and maybe $120/month for
>> service (?), might seem a bargain.
>
> that's quite the imagination.
>
> tracfone sells an iphone se for $189, which could be used with the same
> service plan you currently have.
>
> <https://www.tracfone.com/phone/apple-iphone-se-64gb-prepaid>
>
> that's a *far* cry from the prices you seem to think apply.

If you are comparing TCO for a $190 phone to a $1500 phone, then the whole
concept of the TCO of iPhone versus Android is bogus for too many reasons.

Everything is wrong about the concept the original poster is laying out.

The original poster has to limit the entire discussion to only the highest
price phones to even give the iPhone any chance at all as Apple doesn't
even try to sell phones in the competitive ranges that most people buy.

Even limited to the highest price phones, the original poster hasn't
established that TCO is even one of the slightest concerns of the buyer.

The argument of the original poster is that he can find a great deal on
some unspecified phone if he complies with all sorts of temporary one-time
terms and conditions, and if he compares that phone to some other phone
where he doesn't even attempt to get a great deal, then the resale value of
the first phone (if he sold it to the highest bidder) is greater than the
resale value of the second phone (if he just dumped it on the market).

The entire concept is bogus as everyone knows the iPhone is the much more
expensive phone if you average the costs for all phones out there using
realistic numbers that are openly on the manufacturers' own web sites.

If the original poster could have made a case, he would have made it.
And he did not.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Extra points for matching up, especially since Apple likes to
>> try to break compatibility. What apps do you use? Is there a difference
>> on the two systems? Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
>> service to keep a copy of your system online? Do you use a cellphone
>> constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?
>
> Valuing all those things in a TCO calculation will be difficult.

The whole concept that only people in the highest priced market care to
choose their phone and their plan by the TCO is bogus & unsupported.

What the original poster should do is REMOVE this bullet item from his doc.
It's completely bogus in every way you look at it.

Only if the original poster severely constrains the data does it work out.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> No-one gloats with Siri. It's the worst of the personal assistants.
>
> bixby says hello.

How does Siri or Bixby play any role in a total cost of ownership
calculation between any given high end iPhone & similar Android?

[nospam]

In article <tp1vd1$vhe$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram

<chri...@me.com> wrote:

> >> If you're going to compare TCO then wouldn't usage factors
> >> also come into play? Does you spouse/lover have the same phone?
> >
> > that helps, since all purchased apps will work under a family plan,
> > thereby avoiding each person needing to buy their own copy.
>
> If the concept is total cost of ownership, you can't assume that the only
> way that you can get a good value is to be forced into signing up for a
> family plan,

there is no signup for a family plan.

once again, you demonstrate your ignorance about how things work.

> >> Are you non-teechy and depend on Apple's
> >> service to keep a copy of your system online?
> >
> > the system cannot be kept online for reasons that should be obvious.
> >
> > user data is entirely on the phone. it can *also* be backed up to the
> > cloud, however, that is not required. it is entirely up to the user
> > which data, if any, is in the cloud.
> >
> > there are valid reasons to do that, as there are not to do that. again,
> > users have a choice.
>
> What does backing up user data have to do with total cost of ownership?

the claim was that people must 'depend on apple's service to keep a
copy of your system online', which is easily debunked and doesn't even
make sense. everything is local. the cloud is an optional extra.

> >> Do you use a cellphone
> >> constantly? Then battery life would matter, no?
> >
> > no. batteries last 1-2 days in typical use.
>
> More expensive phones tend to be larger and larger more expensive phones
> tend to have larger batteries but iPhones tend to have smaller batteries
> than equivalently sized and priced Android phones (almost always actually).

yet iphones generally have the longest run times, which is what
matters, not the size of the battery.

> > of course, there are extreme edge cases where it might not last a day,
> > in which case, a battery case works well, or recharge midday. for those
> > who are often in a vehicle (e.g., uber/lyft driver), get a car charger.
>
> This total cost of ownership calculation should include the cost of the
> appropriate charger and cables and all common accessories purchased at the
> manufacturer's store in order to have any merit as a general statement.

almost everyone has chargers and cables from previous phones and other
devices, however, if you insist on adding a charger to the total price,
they're about $10-20. you claim to have bought one for $9.

that's almost nothing over a typical 3-4 year ownership.

[Chris]

There's more to it than chatting.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> *ROTFLSTC*
>> Short Messages, Telegram, Signal, Threema and even WhatsApp exist.
>> This is no issue at all.
>> A family that wants to communicate can communicate irrespective of the
>> platform.
>
> There's more to it than chatting.

E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
Tell us a little more we don't know yet.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> there is no signup for a family plan.]]

Doesn't matter.

If the only way an iPhone can have lower cost of ownership than an Android
phone is that you have to sign up for a special plan, then it's a bogus
argument, especially given how huge iPhone cost of ownership usually is.

>> What does backing up user data have to do with total cost of ownership?
>
> the claim was that people must 'depend on apple's service to keep a
> copy of your system online', which is easily debunked and doesn't even
> make sense. everything is local. the cloud is an optional extra.

Unless there is a relevant cost of ownership difference in backing up
Android versus backing up iPhones, then again, the argument is bogus.

>> More expensive phones tend to be larger and larger more expensive phones
>> tend to have larger batteries but iPhones tend to have smaller batteries
>> than equivalently sized and priced Android phones (almost always actually).
>
> yet iphones generally have the longest run times, which is what
> matters, not the size of the battery.

Unless there is an appreciable cost of ownership argument that you are not
stating then the size of the battery (or run time) is irrelevant to TCO.

> almost everyone has chargers and cables from previous phones and other

> devices.

It's ridiculous for you to claim the only way you can get the iPhone to NOT
far exceed Android cost of ownership is to use garbage dump accessories.

If the only way you can make your total cost of ownership work out less
horrible for the iPhone is to assume people go to the dump to find old worn
out (probably dangerous) slow low amperage chargers, then say it outright.

> that's almost nothing over a typical 3-4 year ownership.

If the only way you can make any case for iPhone ownership costs not being
huge over Android ownership costs is to assume iPhone owners scrounge all
their accessories from the local garbage dump, then your case is bogus.

The only valid case for iPhone versus Android ownership costs is to
calculate them on the basis of all new common accessories designed to fit
that phone's charging standard (which is often either PD or QC nowadays).

It's ridiculous for you to claim the only way you can get the iPhone to NOT
exceed the cost of ownership of Android is to only use garbage dump parts.

[Alan]

On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.

And if someone needs to call you...

...because it's urgent...

...and you keep your cell phone turned off?

That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.

[nospam]

In article <tp2524$1jmm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram

<chri...@me.com> wrote:

> > there is no signup for a family plan.]]
>
> Doesn't matter.

it does matter, because it's further evidence that you have no clue
about much of anything.

> If the only way an iPhone can have lower cost of ownership than an Android
> phone is that you have to sign up for a special plan, then it's a bogus
> argument, especially given how huge iPhone cost of ownership usually is.

nobody said it was the only way, nor does one have to sign up for it,
and not only that, the same benefit applies to android.

you truly are clueless.

> >> What does backing up user data have to do with total cost of ownership?
> >
> > the claim was that people must 'depend on apple's service to keep a
> > copy of your system online', which is easily debunked and doesn't even
> > make sense. everything is local. the cloud is an optional extra.
>
> Unless there is a relevant cost of ownership difference in backing up
> Android versus backing up iPhones, then again, the argument is bogus.

mayayana made that claim and yes it's bogus, however, it's not for the
reasons you claim.

> > almost everyone has chargers and cables from previous phones and other
> > devices.
>
> It's ridiculous for you to claim the only way you can get the iPhone to NOT
> far exceed Android cost of ownership is to use garbage dump accessories.

nobody claimed anything close to that.

not only are you clueless, but you're a liar.

[Your Name]

This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of any
kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in *me*
having one - it's simply yet another unnecessary on-going expense
paying out to greedy telecoms companies.

[Alan]

That makes me completely happy.

Not having mobile phone at all is a valid choice.

Having one, paying for it...

...but not taking full advantage of what you're paying for is just stupid.

[Chris]

Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Unless there is a relevant cost of ownership difference in backing up
>> Android versus backing up iPhones, then again, the argument is bogus.
>
> mayayana made that claim and yes it's bogus, however, it's not for the
> reasons you claim.

Your entire argument REQUIRES arbitrary limitations.

The only way an iPhone isn't going to cost far more than an Android phone
is if you artificially limit almost everything in terms of true costs.

You're already scraping the barrel claiming that you have to sneak into
junk yards at night so that you don't have to pay the price for Apple
branded chargers of the proper iPhone charging standard (PD usually).

You're ignoring that most phones are NOT either sold or traded when someone
purchases a new phone, but they turn into a zero dollar value goat turd.

For your argument on iOS apps costing less you have to go against all known
statistics about which market segment contains the app whales.

Your argument that most people get their iPhones at zero cost is as
preposterous as the rest of your arguments have been.

Every one of your ridiculous arguments REQUIRES you to limit the selection
of the two phones that you would be comparing for total ownership costs.

You'd have to cherry pick to find one iPhone whose high cost of ownership
isn't many fold that of the total ownership cost of most Android phones.

[Jerry]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?

The problem with photo storage is the entire iPhone platform is designed to
*increase* the total cost of ownership for people who store large amounts.

All these total cost of ownership calculations are ignoring that Apple
designs the iPhone to *increase* the total cost of ownership such as when
Apple removed the 3.5mm slot in favor of far more expensive accessories.

Given Apple's intent is expressly to *increase total cost of ownership*
there is no way except in very special corner cases an iPhone can ever cost
less than Android (for equivalent phones and capacities and carrier plans).

Any attempt to show otherwise has to ignore almost every Android out there.

[nospam]

In article <tp2a0d$1jqo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram

<chri...@me.com> wrote:

> You're already scraping the barrel claiming that you have to sneak into
> junk yards at night so that you don't have to pay the price for Apple
> branded chargers of the proper iPhone charging standard (PD usually).

nobody has claimed anything close to that, liar.

> You're ignoring that most phones are NOT either sold or traded when someone
> purchases a new phone, but they turn into a zero dollar value goat turd.

false. most phones are traded in, sold on the used market, or handed
down to other family members, usually parents giving them to their kids
after they get something new for themselves. this is not unique to
iphones and has been the case long before there even were iphones.

> For your argument on iOS apps costing less you have to go against all known
> statistics about which market segment contains the app whales.

nobody said anything about the price of ios or android apps, liar.

> Your argument that most people get their iPhones at zero cost is as
> preposterous as the rest of your arguments have been.

most people get discounts from the retail price no matter what phone
they buy, as low as zero with contract, which has been the case for
decades.

mayayana's claim that iphones cost 'thousands of dollars' or whatever
price he said is simply bullshit. even the carrier he uses sells one
for $189.

> Every one of your ridiculous arguments REQUIRES you to limit the selection
> of the two phones that you would be comparing for total ownership costs.

nothing is limited, except your ability to think.

[Alan]

On 2023-01-03 14:38, Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>
> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?

$4/month gets you 200GB.

> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?

How much use is that when the phone...

...along the SD card...

...get stolen.

The $4/month for iCloud not only gets you more storage:

It's an effective backup as well.

>
> The problem with photo storage is the entire iPhone platform is designed to
> *increase* the total cost of ownership for people who store large amounts.
>
> All these total cost of ownership calculations are ignoring that Apple
> designs the iPhone to *increase* the total cost of ownership such as when
> Apple removed the 3.5mm slot in favor of far more expensive accessories.

Hi, Arlen!

I'm sure the extra $10 that somebody makes (not necessarily Apple) is an
absolute deal-breaker (where's the eyeroll emoji? Oh, right! It's easy
to find them on a Mac!)

🙄

[Your Name]

On 2023-01-03 23:15:25 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2023-01-03 14:38, Jerry wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>>
>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>
> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>
>> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?
>
> How much use is that when the phone...
>
> ...along the SD card...
>
> ...get stolen.
>
> The $4/month for iCloud not only gets you more storage:
>
> It's an effective backup as well.

Apple itself says iCloud is NOT a good way to backup photos, etc.
because the syncing means you can too easily delete somethign by
accident (although there is a grace period where you can retrieve
deleted items, remaining free iCloud space allowing). You need to have
a proper backup elsewhere, preferably more than one if the items are
important to you.

Besides which, anyone who actually knows anything about the iPhone
knows you can easily use an SD card to store stuff. Maybe not quite as
easily or cheaply as putting the card into the phone itself ... but
then the extra SSD socket on some Android phones is just another way
for water to get in, something else to potentially go wrong, and a
marketing gimmick that most people will never use anyway.

[nospam]

In article <tp2e8s$1704$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name

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

>
> Apple itself says iCloud is NOT a good way to backup photos, etc.

no, they do not say that. in fact, they say the exact opposite.

> because the syncing means you can too easily delete somethign by
> accident (although there is a grace period where you can retrieve
> deleted items,

in other words, not a risk.

> remaining free iCloud space allowing). You need to have
> a proper backup elsewhere, preferably more than one if the items are
> important to you.

although more backups is always better, it is not a 'need', and if
someone did mistakenly delete something, it would be reflected in the
other backups as well, and unlike icloud, there's no 'grace period'.

you've admitted you do not own a cellphone, so stop pretending to know
how they work.

> Besides which, anyone who actually knows anything about the iPhone
> knows you can easily use an SD card to store stuff. Maybe not quite as
> easily or cheaply as putting the card into the phone itself ... but
> then the extra SSD socket on some Android phones is just another way
> for water to get in, something else to potentially go wrong, and a
> marketing gimmick that most people will never use anyway.

stop digging.

[Rod Speed]

But most don't do the other stuff much. Even tracking where the
other family members are currently works fine between android
and iphone.

[%%]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:25:25 +1100, Your Name <Your...@yourisp.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-03 21:11:09 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>> And if someone needs to call you...
>> ...because it's urgent...
>> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.
>
> This will make you happy then ... I've never had a mobile phone of any
> kind, and probably never will. I don't see any point at all in *me*
> having one

So why should anyone take any notice of anything you ever say about mobile
phones ?

[chop]

Not if you don't want people calling you and do find the phone
useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car
stopping working.

[Rod Speed]

Perfectly possible to do all of that apart from paid apps cross platform.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-03, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> You're already scraping the barrel claiming that you have to sneak into
>> junk yards at night so that you don't have to pay the price for Apple
>> branded chargers of the proper iPhone charging standard (PD usually).
>
> nobody has claimed anything close to that, liar.

You don't understand metaphor in addition to not understanding that the
iPhone will always have a much higher total cost of ownership over Android.

The metaphor of the junk yard was that you repeatedly made the ridiculous
suggestion that someone buying a $1500 phone is going to use an old charger
from a decade ago which doesn't have anywhere near current PD/QC standards.

If the only way you can make your case is you have to say that Android
accessories cost money but Apple accessories are free because you use
chargers from a decade ago that don't support today's standards, then it's
further proof that you have no argument at all.

The only realistic way to assess charger cost is to use the charger that
came with the phone (if any) and if no charger came with the phone then you
have to add the cost of a branded charger at the Apple store or from
Samsung (assuming a comparison to Galaxy phones against the iPhone) that
supports the PD/QC standards that the phone itself supports.

Anything else is just ridiculous.

You make the suggestion to use an old beat up anemic charger because your
argument on total cost of ownership can't work without free accessories.

>
>> You're ignoring that most phones are NOT either sold or traded when someone
>> purchases a new phone, but they turn into a zero dollar value goat turd.
>
> false. most phones are traded in, sold on the used market, or handed
> down to other family members, usually parents giving them to their kids
> after they get something new for themselves. this is not unique to
> iphones and has been the case long before there even were iphones.

The other guy already reported that 30% to 35% of phones are resold or
traded in so the majority of phones have a resale value of a goat turd.

Again, your argument only works if you assume preposterous assumptions
where you know that the iPhone will always cost more than Android overall.

>
>> For your argument on iOS apps costing less you have to go against all known
>> statistics about which market segment contains the app whales.
>
> nobody said anything about the price of ios or android apps, liar.

Again you don't understand that YOU brought up the apps, not me.

If you're going to bring apps into a conversation of total costs between
iPhone and Android you have to establish the cost of those apps.

Not me.
You.

It's well known iPhone owners are whales so you're again going to have to
make preposterous assumptions if you are to claim apps make Android cost
more than iPhones as Androids will always cost less in almost every way.

Including apps.

>
>> Your argument that most people get their iPhones at zero cost is as
>> preposterous as the rest of your arguments have been.
>
> most people get discounts from the retail price no matter what phone
> they buy, as low as zero with contract, which has been the case for
> decades.

You are the one limiting the target market to only high end phones.

Not me.
You.

If you do not limit the phone to only the high end, then, sure, people will
get whatever phone comes to them by whatever deal they can get from others.

But if the phones are high end phones, those people who buy them KNOW what
they want and they're not going to choose their personal phone which they
will keep by their side for the next few years based on some momentary deal
that the carrier gave them for a specific phone with a specific setup.

At the high end, people choose the phone first, and then they pay for it.
It's not the other way around.

Again, your arguments only work if you make these preposterous assumptions.

The iPhone will almost always cost more than the Android phone in almost
all cases. All your attempts to change that are simply cherry picking.

>
> mayayana's claim that iphones cost 'thousands of dollars' or whatever
> price he said is simply bullshit. even the carrier he uses sells one
> for $189.

Can I get that $190 iPhone right now or not?
If I can't get it without changing anything on my plan, tell me how.

It doesn't exist for me, right?
I knew that.

So do you.

It's a highly unrealistic cherry picked special deal which is the only way
your argument will ever work - and that's just a bogus argument overall.

>
>> Every one of your ridiculous arguments REQUIRES you to limit the selection
>> of the two phones that you would be comparing for total ownership costs.
>
> nothing is limited, except your ability to think.

In general, the iPhone will *always* cost (a lot) more than Android over
the life of the device for all the reasons you are cherry picking against.

No. Your entire argument is ridiculous because in almost every way the
iPhone is designed by Apple to cost more than is Android - from the lack of
expansion slots to the removal of ports to the inclusion of small batteries
to the limitation on app installations to the need for special cables and
to the lack of any charger included with the iPhone nowadays.

The iPhone will *always* cost more than Android phones for these reasons.

Any argument otherwise *requires* your ridiculously bogus cherry picking
such as using an old beat up slow low-current charger that is a decade old
so that you don't have to buy a PD charger from Apple for that new phone.

[Jerry]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:25 -0800, Alan wrote:

>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>
> $4/month gets you 200GB.

The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
lifetime of the phone.

The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
$48/year for 3 years is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.

A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/

That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for Android.

[Alan]

So you don't seem to be aware that you can put the phone on silent / do
not disturb.

Interesting.

[Alan]

But you get a benefit you don't get with an SD card:

A backup of your data.

[nospam]

In article <tp2m4c$1g59$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Chris Schram

<chri...@me.com> wrote:

> >
> > mayayana's claim that iphones cost 'thousands of dollars' or whatever
> > price he said is simply bullshit. even the carrier he uses sells one
> > for $189.
>
> Can I get that $190 iPhone right now or not?

anyone can.

whether you personally can figure out what to do is questionable.

> If I can't get it without changing anything on my plan, tell me how.

this isn't about you, and you're continuing to dig yourself a deeper
hole.

[Alan]

On 2023-01-03 15:38, Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 23:15:25 +0000, Alan said:
>> On 2023-01-03 14:38, Jerry wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>>>
>>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>>
>> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>>
>>> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?
>>
>> How much use is that when the phone...
>>
>> ...along the SD card...
>>
>> ...get stolen.
>>
>> The $4/month for iCloud not only gets you more storage:
>>
>> It's an effective backup as well.
>
> Apple itself says iCloud is NOT a good way to backup photos, etc.

Do they really?

Let's see it.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.01.23 um 23:12 schrieb Chris:

> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:

>>> There's more to it than chatting.
>>
>> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
>> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.
>
> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.

There are a lot of platform-independent solutions for exactly these
functions.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.01.23 um 08:02 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:

BTW: I use them because I use a Pixel 7 and an iPhone 14 with services
from two different providers.

[Chris]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 03.01.23 um 23:12 schrieb Chris:
>> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Am 03.01.23 um 21:51 schrieb Chris:
>>>> There's more to it than chatting.
>>>
>>> E-Mail? Phone calls? Everything platform-agnostic.
>>> Tell us a little more we don't know yet.
>>
>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>
> There are a lot of platform-independent solutions for exactly these
> functions.

Did I say otherwise? It's simply easier within a smaller (family) group for
everyone to be on the same platform.

[Chris]

Jerry <Je...@JerryThinks.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 22:12:55 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Sharing photos or cloud storage or paid apps or media subscriptions.
>
> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
> How much is a 128GB sd card storage for a typical Android phone life?

How does one share an SD card's storage with family members?

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.01.23 um 03:42 schrieb nospam:

What else do you expect from Arlen/Burnelli?

[chop]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:00:58 +1100, Jerry <Je...@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:25 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>
> The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
> lifetime of the phone.

> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.

Bullshit.

> $48/year for 3 years

That isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

> is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.

Pity that isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/

Perfectly possible to use that for your iphone photo storage.

> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for
> Android.

Bullshit given that it is perfectly possible to use the
200GB Sandisk sdcard for your iphone photo storage.

[chop]

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.

I do in fact do that twice most days, when I am sleeping.

> Interesting.

Fraid not.

[chop]

An SD card does that too.

[Rod Speed]

Not with paid apps.

[Rod Speed]

How do you find the Pixel 7 overheating wise ?

Mate of mine has a Pixel 6 Pro which is fucking useless overheating wise.
It shuts down when videoing and using the phonewith temps in the high
20Cs and given that he wasnt prepared to fuck google over and demand
a full cash refund and only got a google credit, is about to try a Pixel 7
Pro.

Lots of people with a shutdown with the phone howling about overheating
with google.

[Rod Speed]

By uploading its contents to a cloud, stupid.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.01.23 um 22:11 schrieb Alan:

> On 2023-01-03 05:20, Mayayana wrote:
>> I don't generally use apps and mostly just keep a cellphone on-hand,
>> not powered up, for when I need to make a phone call away from home.
>
> And if someone needs to call you...
>
> ...because it's urgent...
>
> ...and you keep your cell phone turned off?
>
> That's about as stupid an idea as I have ever heard.

*+1*

[Chris]

Jerry <Je...@JerryThinks.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:25 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an iPhone?
>>
>> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>
> The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
> lifetime of the phone.

No. This sub-thread is about sharing services with family (or close
friends) within and across platforms.

> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
> $48/year for 3 years is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.
>
> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/
>
> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for Android.

You're not comparing like with like. An SD card is not the same as cloud
storage - even on Android.

In the UK icloud 200GB is £2.49 pm. Google drive is also £2.49 pm for
200GB. No difference.

[Jerry]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 12:12:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
>> lifetime of the phone.
>
> No. This sub-thread is about sharing services with family (or close
> friends) within and across platforms.

OK. I'll step out as I was just saying that iPhone photo storage is always
five to ten times more expensive than Android photo storage because Apple
designed it that way.

For one, you can't even get 200MB of $27 sd card storage on the iPhone.
For another, 200MB of iPhone storage costs $150 over the iPhone's life.

That additional $150 - $25 (using rough numbers) has to be always added to
the cost of every iPhone if the user wishes to store that amount of photos.

>
>> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
>> $48/year for 3 years is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.
>>
>> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
>> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/
>>
>> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for Android.
>
> You're not comparing like with like. An SD card is not the same as cloud
> storage - even on Android.

No. You're wrong. You don't seem to understand sd card storage at all.
For you to equate sd storage with cloud storage is not accurate.
They're completely different.

Apple wants you to THINK they're the same.
But they're completely different.

If all you want is 200MB of photo storage, then the sd card works perfect.
On Android.

It's removable also.
And transferable to a computer or another phone.
Without needing the cloud.

But only on Android.
It doesn't work at all on iOS.

If all you want is 200MB of storage on an iPhone, then you're going to have
to pay through the nose for that, which is exactly how Apple designed it.

How you get that 200MB for photo storage is up to you but Apple designed it
to be five to ten times more expensive than just using an sd card would be.

When you're comparing cost of ownership, the iPhone will always have a far
greater cost of ownership for storage that has to be added into the math.

Apple designed it to be that way.

>
> In the UK icloud 200GB is £2.49 pm. Google drive is also £2.49 pm for
> 200GB. No difference.

You do not understand photo storage if you are saying that the iCloud is
the same choice as using any cloud storage solution (because it's not).

They're different solutions.
Both solutions are available to Android owners.

But Apple designed the iPhone to NOT have an sd card solution at all.

If all you want is 200MB of photo storage, for an Android phone it's $27.
If all you want is 200MB of photo storage, for iPhone it's much more $$$.

Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more expensive
on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total ownership costs.

[Jerry]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 07:34:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> How does one share an SD card's storage with family members?

You do not seem to have any practical experience with use of sd cards.

Sharing sd card storage is trivial on Android.
It's impossible on iOS.

[Chris Schram]

On 2023-01-04, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Can I get that $190 iPhone right now or not?
>
> anyone can.
>
> whether you personally can figure out what to do is questionable.

What you are trying to do by insulting me is you're trying to avoid
answering that a legion of your cherry picked ridiculously complex set of
hassles and scrounging for free accessories are REQUIRED in order for
iPhone math to come close to what you need it to be to compare to Android.

The iPhone will always be much more expensive in overall costs than Android
(whether you look at the averages or even if you choose only one market).

The causes are many but the key reason is that Apple designed it that way.

[Bob Campbell]

Chris Schram <chri...@me.com> wrote:
> The iPhone will always be much more expensive in overall costs than Android

And a BMW will always be much more expensive in overall costs than a Chevy.


So what’s your point?

What the stupid troll kiddies don’t understand is that those who can afford
the more expensive choice don’t give a damn about “total cost of
ownership”.

I’m sure there are nut jobs on BMW newsgroups claiming that a Chevy is just
as good as a BMW too.

Even for you retarded troll kiddies, this is an absurd topic. But hey,
thanks for pointing out that the better product actually costs more.
That’s SUCH a new concept that we were completely unaware of.

Androidiots indeed. 🙄

[chop]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 03:04:24 +1100, Jerry <Je...@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 07:34:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> How does one share an SD card's storage with family members?
>
> You do not seem to have any practical experience with use of sd cards.
>
> Sharing sd card storage is trivial on Android.
> It's impossible on iOS.

Bullshit it is. Plenty of sd adapters that use the lightning port.

> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
> expensive
> on the iPhone,

More bullshit.

> then you MUST account for that in the total ownership costs.

More bullshit.

[Alan]

Then what was the bullshit about not having it turned on being the way
to handle not wanting people calling you?

>
>> Interesting.
>
> Fraid not.

[Alan]

Nope.

If you're using an SD card as the primary store for anything, then you
need at least one more storage medium to call it a back up.

An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the phone.

[Alan]

You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
efficient way to share photos, are you?

[nospam]

In article <fjudnXuOTMygKyj-...@supernews.com>, Bob
Campbell <nu...@none.none> wrote:

>
> What the stupid troll kiddies donąt understand is that those who can afford
> the more expensive choice donąt give a damn about łtotal cost of
> ownership˛.

not only that, but few people pay for the phone outright. they usually
finance it, with the difference being a few dollars a month.

> Iąm sure there are nut jobs on BMW newsgroups claiming that a Chevy is just

> as good as a BMW too.

everyone knows that yugo is the best, with the lowest cost of ownership

too.

> Even for you retarded troll kiddies, this is an absurd topic. But hey,
> thanks for pointing out that the better product actually costs more.

> Thatąs SUCH a new concept that we were completely unaware of.

that's crazy-talk. are you sure that's true? i had never heard of it
until now.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> What the stupid troll kiddies don't understand is that those who can afford
>> the more expensive choice dont give a damn about total cost of
>> ownership.

>
> not only that, but few people pay for the phone outright. they usually
> finance it, with the difference being a few dollars a month.

Both those sentiments are near sighted but both have some truth to them.
<https://i.postimg.cc/G3yPJjmj/clipboard01.jpg>

Bob Campbell buys his iPhone only to "look pretty", so Bob Campbell thinks
(erroneously so) that he is superior because he can "afford" to waste his
money (which is his prerogative but it's not something to be proud of).

Bob Campbell is proud of his dumb decision - purely due to its cost alone.

To many people who are smarter than Bob Campbell is, it's their prerogative
to buy the best phone they can buy, which will almost never be an iPhone.

Every once in a while an iPhone might come out with a decent camera, for
example, but within weeks the iPhone will be completely off the best list.

It's actually laughable how poorly designed an iPhone is in terms of the
functionality iOS lacks that _every_ other operating system already has.

The iPhone excels at nothing.
If it did, someone would prove me wrong.

But they can't.
Because the iPhone isn't continually the best at anything at all.

The only thing Apple is the best at is advertising the iPhone.
Nothing else.

As for paying for the iPhone outright, there is only a shred of truth in
what nospam thinks because nospam is ignoring the carriers' plan, which
often (but not always) takes into account the cost of that iPhone.

For example, my carrier gave me a handful of Android phones for free,
without any strings attached, and no contract change other than if I don't
hold on to them for two years I'd have to pay what's remaining (which is
fair).

However, I had to purchase my iPhones at cost, with only a tradein for my
old iPhone, which means the total cost of the iPhone is vastly greater.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8CdRfDFn/my-iphone.jpg>

It's always that way.
*Total cost of iPhones will always be astronomically more than Android.*

>
>> I¹m sure there are nut jobs on BMW newsgroups claiming that a Chevy is just

>> as good as a BMW too.
>
> everyone knows that yugo is the best, with the lowest cost of ownership
> too.

Just as it would be ridiculous to claim the cost of ownership of a bimmer
is less than that of a yugo simply based on resale value alone, it's just
as ridiculous the arguments that Steve and nospam are claiming for Apple.

The iPhone is _designed_ by Apple to cost more than Android from the start.

Why do you think there are no sd card slots for God's sake?
Don't you iKooks understand _anything_ about Apple's marketing strategies?

The iPhone will always be astronomically more expensive to maintain.
Period.

Even with all the crazy assumptions that both nospam and Steve are making
just to get the cost down to something that isn't astronomical (e.g., they
are assuming the phone is free, and the accessories are free, etc.), even
then, the cost of _maintaining_ an iPhone is almost always more than
Android.

In fact, most people who buy an iPhone are so afraid of it that they buy
the extremely expensive good-for-nothing AppleCare plan, while I'd wager
that most Android owners don't even _need_ that stupidly expensive type of
insurance plan.

I certainly don't.

Only an idiot buys insurance for something they can easily replace.
The insurance companies prey on idiots like you iKooks always are.

They know the math better than you low-IQ ill-educated iKooks do.

You'll pay more overall for that laughable insurance than if you just
trusted that Apple built the phone not to self destruct in a few months.

>
>> Even for you retarded troll kiddies, this is an absurd topic. But hey,
>> thanks for pointing out that the better product actually costs more.

>> That's SUCH a new concept that we were completely unaware of.

>
> that's crazy-talk. are you sure that's true? i had never heard of it
> until now.

You both have no education.
You both have a low IQ.

So you can be forgiven that you dumbly equate price with quality.
Without even a _single_ quality metric in your personal calculations.

It's always the case with you iKooks:
a. You have a low IQ
b. You have no education

So you dumbly equate price with quality, with no questions asked.
That's pretty dumb.

What's interesting is due to the low IQ and lack of education of the
iKooks, which is that they equate price to quality, a priori.

There's _nothing_ the iPhone is better at that isn't already in Android.
Nothing.

If there was, you iKooks could elucidate what that is.
And you never do.

Because you can't.

What's funny is you iKooks have such a low IQ that you don't even realize
that you can't back up even a single on of your imaginary belief systems.

For example, name one thing that the iPhone can do that Android can't.
*Name just one*
--
Notice they can't do that, and yet they equated price with quality.

[grinch]

On 04/01/2023 19:8, Alan wrote:

> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the phone.

Your claim is ridiculously short sighted out of your ignorance of sd cards.

Do you really not know how easy it is to copy sd to any pc or flash drive?

There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all difficult.

[Jerry]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 19:59:45 +1100, chop wrote:

>> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
>
> Bullshit.

You can say bullshit but you can't back it up so it's you who bullshits.
Every comment from you reeks of lack of understanding of photo storage.

>
>> $48/year for 3 years
>
> That isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

Why did you think anyone said it was?
Are you stupid?

If you're not stupid, then you'd have realized nobody said it was.

>
>> is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.
>
> Pity that isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

You are the only one saying it's the only way.

Why?
Because it's _you_ who is stupid.

Nobody (but you) claimed it's the "only way" to store photos.
You need to bone up on how the iPhone/Android camera apps store photos.

>
>> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
>> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/
>
> Perfectly possible to use that for your iphone photo storage.

All your comments simply show that you're stupid.

You don't even realize the iPhone saves photos to the internal storage.
Meanwhile, Android is typically set to save photos to sd card storage.

Big difference in cost.
It's one of the reasons the iPhone is always more expensive in every way.

>
>> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for
>> Android.
>
> Bullshit given that it is perfectly possible to use the
> 200GB Sandisk sdcard for your iphone photo storage.

Apparently, from your comments, you are unaware of how the iPhone works.
And you are unaware of how the Android phone works too.

At least in terms of where iPhone/Android cameras initially save photos.

The iPhone saves to (expensive & nonremovable) internal storage.
The Android saves photos to (inexpensive & removable) sdcard storage.

Please bone up on how the iPhone and Android camera apps work.
If you don't say stupid things, I won't respond that you're stupid.

Instead, say smart intelligent things when/if you reply.

[Jerry]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 04:48:44 +1100, chop wrote:

>> Sharing sd card storage is trivial on Android.
>> It's impossible on iOS.
>
> Bullshit it is. Plenty of sd adapters that use the lightning port.

Everything you don't understand, you call bullshit.

Do you even realize that the iPhone saves the photos to internal storage?
That's expensive internal storage.
That's non-removable internal storage.

Do you realize that most Androids save the photo to external storage?
That's inexpensive external storage.
That's removable external storage.

Why do you think Apple never gave iPhone owners this common option?
Why do you think Apple makes it so easy to sync photos to the iCloud?
Why do you think Apple gave you a meager amount of free iCloud space?

Do you know anything about Apple?
Or do you just want to call everything bullshit that you don't understand?

>
>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>> expensive
>> on the iPhone,
>
> More bullshit.

You call everything that you can't understand, bullshit.

You have no idea that internal storage costs more than external storage.
You don't even understand how iPhones store photos initially.
Worse, you don't understand how Android phones store photos initially.

Everything you don't understand, you call bullshit.

>
>> then you MUST account for that in the total ownership costs.
>
> More bullshit.

When you don't understand something, you call it bullshit.
In your mind, by calling everything you don't understand bullshit, that
means (in your mind) you can continue to never understand it.

What you don't understand is how the iPhone stores photos initially.
And you don't understand how most Androids store photos initially.

You don't understand the cost of that media for the iPhone.
And you don't understand the cost of that media for Android.

Hence you call it bullshit.
That way you can continue to never understand a word that was said.

If you respond, please indicate that you understand how an iPhone camera
app initially stores photos and likewise, how most Android camera apps do.

[Jerry]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:

>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more expensive
>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total ownership costs.
>
> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
> efficient way to share photos, are you?

How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?

How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to "pass
around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other options?

To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android) is
always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you can do.

How did you _miss_ that?
Are you stupid?

[chop]

I never said that. I ACTUALLY said that if you find the phone

useful in an emergency or even something simple like the car

stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the
car not working so that you don't have to charge it every day.

>>
>>> Interesting.
>> Fraid not.

[Alan]

That was the point under discussion when you popped off without reading.

[Alan]

Having two hammers won't let you do what a spanner can do.

[chop]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:08:49 +1100, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 01:03, chop wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:05:17 +1100, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-03 18:00, Jerry wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:25 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How much is 128GB of iCloud storage rented for the life of an
>>>>>> iPhone?
>>>>>
>>>>> $4/month gets you 200GB.
>>>> The topic is cost of photo storage between iPhone and Android for the
>>>> lifetime of the phone.
>>>> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
>>>> $48/year for 3 years is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo
>>>> storage.
>>>> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/
>>>> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for
>>>> Android.
>>>
>>> But you get a benefit you don't get with an SD card:
>>>
>>> A backup of your data.
>> An SD card does that too.

> Nope.

Fraid so.

> If you're using an SD card as the primary store for anything,

You don't do that with an iphone.

> then you need at least one more storage medium to call it a back up.

Not with an iphone, you use the SD card as the means of backing
up your data instead of paying for the cloud storage.

> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
> phone.

Not when it is used for the backup instead of paying for cloud storage.

[Alan]

But you have to REMEMBER to do it.

The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.

And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...

...how do you make a copy of that SD card?

[Alan]

Provided you REMEMBER to do it...

>
>> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
>> phone.
>
> Not when it is used for the backup instead of paying for cloud storage.

Provided you remember to do so.

Personally, $4/month to have it happen automatically is a very
reasonable exchange of value.

[Rod Speed]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:41:29 +1100, Jerry <Je...@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 19:59:45 +1100, chop wrote:
>
>>> The iPhone photo storage is MUCH more expensive than Android storage.
>> Bullshit.

> You can say bullshit but you can't back it up

I did.

> so it's you who bullshits.

You just did.

> Every comment from you reeks of lack of understanding of photo storage.

We'll see...

>>> $48/year for 3 years

>> That isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

> Why did you think anyone said it was?
> Are you stupid?

More of your bullshit.

> If you're not stupid, then you'd have realized nobody said it was.

But you stupidly waved it around and ignored the much
cheaper ways to do photo storage on an iphone.

>>> is about $150 for that 200GB of iPhone photo storage.

>> Pity that isnt the only way to do iphone photo storage.

<reams of your mindless repetition flushed where it belongs>

> You need to bone up on how the iPhone/Android camera apps store photos.

Nope, dope/bullshitter.

>>> A 200GB Sandisk sdcard on Amazon (first hit) is $27 today.
>>> https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-200GB-microSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B08HCHS64Y/

>> Perfectly possible to use that for your iphone photo storage.

> All your comments simply show that you're stupid.

We'll see...

> You don't even realize the iPhone saves photos to the internal storage.

Wrong, as always given that I have an iphone and only use that for photos.

> Meanwhile, Android is typically set to save photos to sd card storage.

But it is perfectly possible to save your photos to and sd card
with an iphone to avoid paying anything for cloud storage.

> Big difference in cost.

Not when you use an sd card with an iphone instead of paying anything
for cloud storage,

> It's one of the reasons the iPhone is always more expensive in every way.

More of your bullshit.

>>> That iPhone photo storage is about 5 times more expensive than for
>>> Android.

>> Bullshit given that it is perfectly possible to use the
>> 200GB Sandisk sdcard for your iphone photo storage.

<reams of your mindless repetition flushed where it belongs>

> Please bone up on how the iPhone and Android camera apps work.

Go and fuck yourself. No please, that's an order.

> If you don't say stupid things, I won't respond that you're stupid.

No one actually gives a flying red fuck what some stupid bullshitter
stupidly bullshits.

> Instead, say smart intelligent things when/if you reply.

Go and fuck yourself, again. No please, that's an order.

[chop]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:52:29 +1100, Jerry <Je...@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 04:48:44 +1100, chop wrote:
>
>>> Sharing sd card storage is trivial on Android.
>>> It's impossible on iOS.
>> Bullshit it is. Plenty of sd adapters that use the lightning port.

> Everything you don't understand, you call bullshit.

I call a spade a spade and a stupid bullshitter a stupid bullshitter.

> Do you even realize that the iPhone saves the photos to internal storage?

Might well do given that I only do photos on an iphone now.

> That's expensive internal storage.

No more expensive than the equivalent top end or mid level smartphone.

> That's non-removable internal storage.

But it is trivial to add removable storage to an iphone
if you choose to avoid paying for cloud storage.

> Do you realize that most Androids save the photo to external storage?

That's bullshit too. Most in fact choose to save their photos
to internal storage and to the cloud and don't bother with
primitive sd cards with their high end and mid level smartphones.

> That's inexpensive external storage.

Perfectly possible to do that with an iphone if you want to.

> That's removable external storage.

Perfectly possible to do that with an iphone if you want to.

> Why do you think Apple never gave iPhone owners this common option?

Because it has always been possible to do that with an iphone if you
want to and Apple realises that most who buy the classes of smartphones
that they choose to sell don't do their photos that way and because
that will always compromise the water proofing of the phone.

> Why do you think Apple makes it so easy to sync photos to the iCloud?

Because that is much more convenient and automatic than
farting around with an sd card and for some odd reason androids
make that just as easy. Can't imagine why for the life of me.

> Why do you think Apple gave you a meager amount of free iCloud space?

It is no more meager than the other could services.

> Do you know anything about Apple?

Might well do given that I have chosen to buy and use iphones.

> Or do you just want to call everything bullshit that you don't
> understand?

I understand bullshit when I see it and usually do call it bullshit.

>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>> expensive
>>> on the iPhone,

>> More bullshit.

<reams of your stupid repeated bullshit flushed where it belongs>

>>> then you MUST account for that in the total ownership costs.

>> More bullshit.

> If you respond, please indicate that you understand how an iPhone camera
> app initially stores photos and likewise, how most Android camera apps
> do.

[Rod Speed]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:57:41 +1100, Jerry <Je...@jerrythinks.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:10:01 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>>> Because Apple designed photo storage to be five to ten times more
>>> expensive
>>> on the iPhone, then you MUST account for that in the total ownership
>>> costs.
>> You're not seriously proposing that passing around an SD card is an
>> efficient way to share photos, are you?

> How did you NOT understand a single word that anyone said about this?

More of your bullshit.

> How does NOT having an sd card on the iPhone make it any easier to "pass
> around" photos than it is to have that sd card & choice of other options?

He said EFFICIENT, not EASIER, stupid.

> To dumb it down to words you can understand, having 2 arms (Android) is
> always better than having only 1 arm (iPhone) in terms of what you can
> do.

Perfectly possible to add an sd card to an iphone if you find that useful,
stupid.

> How did you _miss_ that?

He didn't.

> Are you stupid?

No need to ask if you are a bullshitter, the answer is obvious.

[chop]

Couldn't have replied without reading, stupid.

[chop]

But no iphone can do any more than any android can do with
photo storage or exchange except maybe the most primitive
andoids that have so little internal storage that they can't run
any cloud app at all.

[Alan]

And yet, you failed to understand what you read.

[Alan]

But none of that is the point under discussion, sunshine.

[chop]

Correct, but that's irrelevant to his stupid claim about iphone
photo storage always being much more expensive.

>>> An SD card IN the phone will get lost or stolen right along WITH the
>>> phone.
>> Not when it is used for the backup instead of paying for cloud storage.

> Provided you remember to do so.

Correct, but that's irrelevant to his stupid claim about iphone
photo storage always being much more expensive.

> Personally, $4/month to have it happen automatically is a very
> reasonable exchange of value.

I don't bother because I don't have enough photos I care about to exceed
the free space.

[chop]

Bullshit I did. You failed to understand the point I was
making, that there can be a good reason to turn the
phone off if you don't need to answer incoming calls.

[chop]

There never is just one point under discussion, moonshine.

[grinch]

On 04/01/2023 12:8, Alan wrote:

>> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all difficult.
>
> But you have to REMEMBER to do it.

A computer based sync remembers itself.

> The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
> specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.

What does the "repetitive task made simple" have to do with the overall
cost of ownership of Android versus iOS?

Both can sync to anything.

One has to do so with very expensive media.
The other can use very cheap media.

>
> And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...
>
> ...how do you make a copy of that SD card?

What?
There's no card?

Then it's as dumb as an iPhone is.

Most Androids have an sd card slot.
A 200MB sd card is about $27.

200MB of iPhone storage is a LOT more expensive than that, no matter how
you count that iPhone storage (local to the phone or via iCloud).

The iPhone will always be more expensive on photo storage than Android.

[Alan]

No. There's a good reason to put the phone on "Do Not Disturb" or silent.

[Alan]

And I never said there was.

But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT way to
share photos.

[Alan]

On 2023-01-04 13:23, grinch wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 12:8, Alan wrote:
>
>>> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all
>>> difficult.
>>
>> But you have to REMEMBER to do it.
>
> A computer based sync remembers itself.
>
>> The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
>> specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.
>
> What does the "repetitive task made simple" have to do with the overall
> cost of ownership of Android versus iOS?
>
> Both can sync to anything.
>
> One has to do so with very expensive media.
> The other can use very cheap media.
>
>>
>> And if all you have is a smartphone with an SD card slot...
>>
>> ...how do you make a copy of that SD card?
>
> What?
> There's no card?
>
> Then it's as dumb as an iPhone is.
>
> Most Androids have an sd card slot.
> A 200MB sd card is about $27.

"A" slot.

Not two.

So you have to take additional...

...manual...

...steps to back up the data that is on that SD card in that one slot.

>
> 200MB of iPhone storage is a LOT more expensive than that, no matter how
> you count that iPhone storage (local to the phone or via iCloud).
>
> The iPhone will always be more expensive on photo storage than Android.

Not once you make the Android phone do what the iPhone will do.

[Alan]

On 2023-01-04 13:23, grinch wrote:

> On 04/01/2023 12:8, Alan wrote:
>
>>> There has to be about 10 ways to do it, none of which are at all
>>> difficult.
>>
>> But you have to REMEMBER to do it.
>
> A computer based sync remembers itself.
>
>> The whole point of computers (of which a smartphone is just a
>> specialized variety) is to make repetitive tasks simple.
>
> What does the "repetitive task made simple" have to do with the overall
> cost of ownership of Android versus iOS?
>
> Both can sync to anything.
>
> One has to do so with very expensive media.
> The other can use very cheap media.

But that "cheap media" will require you to take repetitive manual steps
to make it happen.

Ask yourself:

Is all the data on your phone backed up right at this moment?

Backed up last when?

My was last backed up when I plugged it in for the night.

And my photos are being backed up CONSTANTLY.

[chop]

Fraid so.

> There's a good reason to put the phone on "Do Not Disturb" or silent.

That doesn't save the battery, stupid.

[chop]

And I never said you did.

> But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT way to
> share photos.

There was more than just that point under discussion.

[Alan]

If you actually have a battery life problem, ...

...that would be a reason for turning of your phone.

The REASON is NOT: "I don't want to be bothered with people calling me".

[Alan]

You implied it.

>
>> But the point under discussion was that it is not an EFFICIENT way to
>> share photos.
>
> There was more than just that point under discussion.

Not that I was discussing.

Not that you responded to in your irrelevancy.

[chop]

Not talking about battery life, JUST talking about how often it needs
to be charged so its useful in an emergency or even something simple

like the car stopping working and dont want people calling you, it can
make sense to turn it off when it isnt an emergency or the car not working

> ...that would be a reason for turning of your phone.
>
> The REASON is NOT: "I don't want to be bothered with people calling me".

Never said it was