User has "incredible" trouble switching to Android from iOS

[Blacknoodles]

Anna Scantlin should have stayed on iOS!
http://www.phonedog.com/2016/06/26/top-10-android-apps-so-far

Recently I rejoined the Android ecosystem with my new(ish) Samsung Galaxy
S7. It has taken some time to adjust to life away from iOS, and just as I
had feared, I have been spending an incredible amount of time exploring my
phone ĄV something I didnĄŚt do a whole lot of on my iPhone.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 03:25:19 +0000 (UTC), Blacknoodles
<Blackn...@singapore.com> wrote:

>Anna Scantlin should have stayed on iOS!
>http://www.phonedog.com/2016/06/26/top-10-android-apps-so-far
>
>Recently I rejoined the Android ecosystem with my new(ish) Samsung Galaxy
>S7. It has taken some time to adjust to life away from iOS, and just as I
>had feared, I have been spending an incredible amount of time exploring my

>phone V something I didnft do a whole lot of on my iPhone.

My first Android phone was an HTC Cha Cha.

It was relatively easy to use, because it had a green button to answer
the phone and a red button to hand up.

Then I lost it and got a new one with no buttons.

It took me 2 weeks to discover how to answer it when it rang.


--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

[Delayahu Levitt]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 05:52:10 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

> Then I lost it and got a new one with no buttons.
>
> It took me 2 weeks to discover how to answer it when it rang.

I wonder why some phones lost the two software-related hard buttons?
I prefer real buttons to the soft "back" and "menu" buttons.

Was it a cost-cutting move?

[Your Name]

In article <nli0cq$i2c$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Delayahu Levitt

Not in the way you perhaps mean, since it only costs pennies for
thousands of buttons.

The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
replacing it is expensive.

Another potential reason is simply the space wasted on the handset
(inside and outside). Removing the mostly unnecessary physical buttons
gives more room for the screen, better speakers, bigger battery, etc.
within the same sized case.

[nospam]

In article <060720161637162451%Your...@YourISP.com>, Your Name

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

> > > Then I lost it and got a new one with no buttons.
> > >
> > > It took me 2 weeks to discover how to answer it when it rang.
> >
> > I wonder why some phones lost the two software-related hard buttons?
> > I prefer real buttons to the soft "back" and "menu" buttons.
> >
> > Was it a cost-cutting move?
>
> Not in the way you perhaps mean, since it only costs pennies for
> thousands of buttons.

it adds up.

the reason is because android supports soft-buttons, not talk/end.

> The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> replacing it is expensive.

not any credible rumour.

> Another potential reason is simply the space wasted on the handset
> (inside and outside). Removing the mostly unnecessary physical buttons
> gives more room for the screen, better speakers, bigger battery, etc.
> within the same sized case.

the home button is hardly unnecessary.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:37:16 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> replacing it is expensive.

I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
purchases anyway).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[nospam]

In article <nli551$1c8e$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:

>
> > The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> > button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> > buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> > replacing it is expensive.
>
> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> purchases anyway).

no they don't.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 01:33:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
>> purchases anyway).
>
> no they don't.

I can very easy prove what I said.

It's common knowledge that iOS users spend twice as much as Android users
on things like in-app purchases.

It's well known that iOS users spend far more than Android users on all
apps other than utility apps (which iOS doesn't have because it's a more
closed environment that doesn't allow them).

That overspending by iOS on all but utility apps includes gaming.

How are you going to prove that they don't?

[nospam]

In article <nli5o7$1e43$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:

>
> >> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> >> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> >> purchases anyway).
> >
> > no they don't.
>
> I can very easy prove what I said.

no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.

the prices of apps as well as in-app purchases on ios are *not* double
that on android. prices are normally the same on both platforms.

> It's common knowledge that iOS users spend twice as much as Android users
> on things like in-app purchases.

no it isn't.

what's common knowledge is that more ios users will buy apps than
android users because people will pay for quality.

as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

> It's well known that iOS users spend far more than Android users on all
> apps other than utility apps (which iOS doesn't have because it's a more
> closed environment that doesn't allow them).

nonsense. utility apps are a huge category on ios, many of which are
highly popular, both paid and free.

[Your Name]

In article <nli5o7$1e43$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

"nospam" is a brainless know-nothing moron who infests the Apple
newsgroups and believes everyone on the planet does the same as him and
his five geeky friends. Just ignore the imbecile, or even better
killfile him.

[Your Name]

In article <nli551$1c8e$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:37:16 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> >
> > The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> > button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> > buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> > replacing it is expensive.
>
> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> purchases anyway).

A couple of dollars here and there for apps isn't quite the same as a
hundred (or whatever it is) in one hit to replace the button ... plus
of course you lose the phone for as long as the repair takes, which
could be a couple of days or more in busy areas and seems like a
lifetime to those who have them near-permanently glued into their
hands.

[nospam]

In article <060720161811303890%Your...@YourISP.com>, Your Name

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

> > >> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> > >> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> > >> purchases anyway).
> > >
> > > no they don't.
> >
> > I can very easy prove what I said.
> >
> > It's common knowledge that iOS users spend twice as much as Android users
> > on things like in-app purchases.
> >
> > It's well known that iOS users spend far more than Android users on all
> > apps other than utility apps (which iOS doesn't have because it's a more
> > closed environment that doesn't allow them).
> >
> > That overspending by iOS on all but utility apps includes gaming.
> >
> > How are you going to prove that they don't?
>
> "nospam" is a brainless know-nothing moron who infests the Apple
> newsgroups and believes everyone on the planet does the same as him and
> his five geeky friends. Just ignore the imbecile, or even better
> killfile him.

nothing but insults. you can't refute anything that's been said.

'your name' is a person who uses a 20 year old computer (no joke) and
doesn't own an iphone *or* an android phone (and if i remember
correctly, no cellphone at all), which makes one wonder why it's even
reading those newsgroups.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 06.07.2016 um 07:56 schrieb nospam:
> In article <nli5o7$1e43$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi
> <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
>>>> purchases anyway).
>>>
>>> no they don't.
>>
>> I can very easy prove what I said.
>
> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.

And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
statement e.g. in
<http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
at the two graphs).

> the prices of apps as well as in-app purchases on ios are *not* double
> that on android. prices are normally the same on both platforms.

Which is of exactly *no* significance whatsoever. And which he *nowhere*
claimed.

>> It's common knowledge that iOS users spend twice as much as Android users
>> on things like in-app purchases.
>
> no it isn't.

It is, as the study I refer to above is by no means the first to come up
with such a result.

> what's common knowledge is that more ios users will buy apps than
> android users because people will pay for quality.

See, now even you support that statement (at least to some extent). :-)

> as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

And that's why I'm a happy iOS user... :-)

>> It's well known that iOS users spend far more than Android users on all
>> apps other than utility apps (which iOS doesn't have because it's a more
>> closed environment that doesn't allow them).
>
> nonsense. utility apps are a huge category on ios, many of which are
> highly popular, both paid and free.

You may have a point here, however I would assume that Tatsuki was
talking about a type of utility apps (very low level or technical ones
like WiFi scanners e.g.) that simply isn't available on iOS. But in
general I agree, I e.g. have dozens of different apps on my device that
I consider to be utilities. There are simply too many different types of
utilities... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Bernd Fröhlich]

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

> The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> replacing it is expensive.

Sounds like a valid reason to me.
The home button on my 4 year old iPad is acting up as of late and I“m
not sure how long it will be until it stops working alltogether.

My Jolla on the other hand does not have a home button. I don“t miss it.
You simply doubletap on the screen to wake it up. I like it.

[nospam]

In article <1mpyke0.eizvkv10k4bswN%be...@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich

<be...@eaglesoft.de> wrote:

> > The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> > button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> > buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> > replacing it is expensive.
>
> Sounds like a valid reason to me.

it's not.

> The home button on my 4 year old iPad is acting up as of late and I´m
> not sure how long it will be until it stops working alltogether.

the only home button issue i've had is on an iphone 4 which was known
to have a problematic home button. the home buttons on every other ios
device here (roughly a dozen) are working just fine.

> My Jolla on the other hand does not have a home button. I don´t miss it.
> You simply doubletap on the screen to wake it up. I like it.

yuk, and likely will false.

worse, having to double-tap the screen means there's no double-press
gesture nor is there a fingerprint sensor there either.

[nospam]

In article <nli9u0$ok5$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>

wrote:

> >>
> >>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> >>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> >>>> purchases anyway).
> >>>
> >>> no they don't.
> >>
> >> I can very easy prove what I said.
> >
> > no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
>
> And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
> statement e.g. in
> <http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
> at the two graphs).

that doesn't say what you think it does.

his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
they don't.

it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.

> > the prices of apps as well as in-app purchases on ios are *not* double
> > that on android. prices are normally the same on both platforms.
>
> Which is of exactly *no* significance whatsoever. And which he *nowhere*
> claimed.

actually, it is, because it's what he claimed:

> >>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> >>>> purchases anyway).

they don't spent twice as much unless they buy twice as much.

they spend the *same* on a given in-app purchase because the prices are
the same for the same app.

they may buy more apps and make more in-app purchases, but that's not
the same thing at all.

[Bernd Fröhlich]

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

> the only home button issue i've had is on an iphone 4 which was known
> to have a problematic home button. the home buttons on every other ios
> device here (roughly a dozen) are working just fine.

So you are saying that because YOU have no issues with that button,
neither has anybody else?
Sorry, can´t follow you there.

> worse, having to double-tap the screen means there's no double-press
> gesture nor is there a fingerprint sensor there either.

Umm, remind me: where is a double-tap used in iOS?
Can´t remember ever using it.

And a fingerprint sensor does not have to be a button.

[nospam]

In article <1mpyzc1.bd3ud72ylhxiN%be...@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich

<be...@eaglesoft.de> wrote:

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > the only home button issue i've had is on an iphone 4 which was known
> > to have a problematic home button. the home buttons on every other ios
> > device here (roughly a dozen) are working just fine.
>
> So you are saying that because YOU have no issues with that button,
> neither has anybody else?
> Sorry, can´t follow you there.

you need to follow your own posts.

*you* mentioned *your* ipad's failing home button as some sort of proof
for a baseless rumour.

In article <1mpyke0.eizvkv10k4bswN%be...@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich
<be...@eaglesoft.de> wrote:
> > The next iPhone is rumoured to be getting rid of the physical home
> > button. One reason (according to some "experts") is the fact that the
> > buttons is used so much that it wears out relatively quickly, and
> > replacing it is expensive.
>
> Sounds like a valid reason to me.

> The home button on my 4 year old iPad is acting up as of late and I´m
> not sure how long it will be until it stops working alltogether.

> > worse, having to double-tap the screen means there's no double-press
> > gesture nor is there a fingerprint sensor there either.
>
> Umm, remind me: where is a double-tap used in iOS?
> Can´t remember ever using it.

double-pressing the home button has been part of ios since the
beginning.

> And a fingerprint sensor does not have to be a button.

true. it could be on the back, like on some android phones, which is
the dumbest place to put it. some even have it on the side.

having the fingerprint sensor on the home button is the obvious place
to put it.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 06.07.2016 um 13:49 schrieb nospam:
> In article <nli9u0$ok5$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
>>>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
>>>>>> purchases anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>> no they don't.
>>>>
>>>> I can very easy prove what I said.
>>>
>>> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
>>
>> And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
>> statement e.g. in
>> <http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
>> at the two graphs).
>
> that doesn't say what you think it does.

It does say *exactly* what I think it does: That the revenue with apps
from the corresponding App Stores is (almost) twice as high on the Apple
side than on the Google side.

> his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.

He didn't claim that, he claimed that iOS users spend twice as much than
Android users. He said exactly nothing about spending twice as much on
any given item, the total (cumulated) amount of their spending is
(almost) double that of the Android users.

> they don't.

No, they certainly don't. But that's not the point in question.

> it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.

Apple products do cost more. Products for Apple devices may cost more.
Software for Apple devices may cost more (yes, even apps). But in
general Apps for iOS devices don't cost (much) more than the very same
app for Android devices.

>>> the prices of apps as well as in-app purchases on ios are *not* double
>>> that on android. prices are normally the same on both platforms.
>>
>> Which is of exactly *no* significance whatsoever. And which he *nowhere*
>> claimed.
>
> actually, it is, because it's what he claimed:
>>>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
>>>>>> purchases anyway).

Read again and then please tell us where exactly he refers to the price
per app. I can't find that reference anywhere in this.

> they don't spent twice as much unless they buy twice as much.

Which is exactly what's happening.

> they spend the *same* on a given in-app purchase because the prices are
> the same for the same app.

Not the point in question.

> they may buy more apps and make more in-app purchases, but that's not
> the same thing at all.

That is exactly the point in question.

Best regards,

Michael

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:51:02 +0100, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:

> Am 06.07.2016 um 13:49 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <nli9u0$ok5$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>

Yes.
No.

Trollfest!

>


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[nospam]

In article <nliurn$f0g$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>

wrote:

> >>>>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users
> >>>>>> since
> >>>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like
> >>>>>> in-app
> >>>>>> purchases anyway).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> no they don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can very easy prove what I said.
> >>>
> >>> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
> >>
> >> And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
> >> statement e.g. in
> >> <http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
> >> at the two graphs).
> >
> > that doesn't say what you think it does.
>
> It does say *exactly* what I think it does: That the revenue with apps
> from the corresponding App Stores is (almost) twice as high on the Apple
> side than on the Google side.

because more apps are sold.

the price a user pays is roughly the same for ios or android. there is
no 'apple tax'.

> > his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
>
> He didn't claim that, he claimed that iOS users spend twice as much than
> Android users. He said exactly nothing about spending twice as much on
> any given item, the total (cumulated) amount of their spending is
> (almost) double that of the Android users.

he meant per item.

he was attempting to troll that ios users pay more than android users.
they don't.

> > they don't.
>
> No, they certainly don't. But that's not the point in question.
>
> > it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.
>
> Apple products do cost more.

no they definitely do not.

apple products are competitively priced, and many times, apple products
cost *less* than competing products.

try to match a retina imac 5k in the pc world. it can't be done.

a 5k display alone costs roughly what the imac does and then you need
to add a computer with a dual video card because 5k can't run over one
displayport.

> Products for Apple devices may cost more.

no they don't, mainly because it's usually the same product for
multiple platforms.

> Software for Apple devices may cost more (yes, even apps). But in
> general Apps for iOS devices don't cost (much) more than the very same
> app for Android devices.

overall, prices are similar for similar specs, whether it's software or
hardware.

[Bernd Fröhlich]

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

> *you* mentioned *your* ipad's failing home button as some sort of proof
> for a baseless rumour.

No, I mentioned my failing button as proof for the "rumour" that buttons
fail. It is not a rumour, it is indeed happening. (Of course you would
probably only admit that if it would be happening to you.)

> > > worse, having to double-tap the screen means there's no double-press
> > > gesture nor is there a fingerprint sensor there either.
> >
> > Umm, remind me: where is a double-tap used in iOS?
> > Can´t remember ever using it.
>
> double-pressing the home button has been part of ios since the
> beginning.

I thought we were talking about double tapping the screen.

[nospam]

In article <1mpz23r.l9fdqp1s201fuN%be...@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich

<be...@eaglesoft.de> wrote:

>
> > *you* mentioned *your* ipad's failing home button as some sort of proof
> > for a baseless rumour.
>
> No, I mentioned my failing button as proof for the "rumour" that buttons
> fail. It is not a rumour, it is indeed happening. (Of course you would
> probably only admit that if it would be happening to you.)

nothing is perfect. anything can fail.

one button failure means nothing, certainly not a confirmation of a
baseless rumour.

the only issue with home button failure that was above the usual norm
for failures was with the iphone 4.

> > > > worse, having to double-tap the screen means there's no double-press
> > > > gesture nor is there a fingerprint sensor there either.
> > >
> > > Umm, remind me: where is a double-tap used in iOS?
> > > Can´t remember ever using it.
> >
> > double-pressing the home button has been part of ios since the
> > beginning.
>
> I thought we were talking about double tapping the screen.

no.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 06.07.2016 um 15:16 schrieb nospam:
> In article <nliurn$f0g$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users
>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like
>>>>>>>> in-app
>>>>>>>> purchases anyway).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no they don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can very easy prove what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
>>>> statement e.g. in
>>>> <http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
>>>> at the two graphs).
>>>
>>> that doesn't say what you think it does.
>>
>> It does say *exactly* what I think it does: That the revenue with apps
>> from the corresponding App Stores is (almost) twice as high on the Apple
>> side than on the Google side.
>
> because more apps are sold.

Sure, because more Apple users are willing to pay for their apps. The
average Android user rather goes for 'free' apps, which make their money
via displaying ads in the app.

> the price a user pays is roughly the same for ios or android. there is
> no 'apple tax'.

Not here, and I clearly said so.

>>> his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
>>
>> He didn't claim that, he claimed that iOS users spend twice as much than
>> Android users. He said exactly nothing about spending twice as much on
>> any given item, the total (cumulated) amount of their spending is
>> (almost) double that of the Android users.
>
> he meant per item.

Nope. But I will not go any further here unless Tatsuki tells us exactly
what he really meant.

> he was attempting to troll that ios users pay more than android users.

My gut feeling: The only one trolling here is you... ;-)

> they don't.

They do because they buy more.

>>> they don't.
>>
>> No, they certainly don't. But that's not the point in question.
>>
>>> it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.
>>
>> Apple products do cost more.
>
> no they definitely do not.

I think we can agree on the fact, that the iPhone 6S and the Samsung
Galaxy S7 are comparably good smartphones (with the S7 ~6 months newer).
List price for the smallest 6S (all prices in Euro, here in Germany):
745€. List price for the S7: 690€. That's 8% more for a device which is
6 months older (and that is quite a lot of time in this domain).

> apple products are competitively priced, and many times, apple products
> cost *less* than competing products.

Which is sometimes true, sometimes not. ;-)

> try to match a retina imac 5k in the pc world. it can't be done.
>
> a 5k display alone costs roughly what the imac does and then you need
> to add a computer with a dual video card because 5k can't run over one
> displayport.
>
>> Products for Apple devices may cost more.
>
> no they don't, mainly because it's usually the same product for
> multiple platforms.

Products specifically designed (or at least marketed) for Apple products
usually cost more. Perhaps not much, but they do cost more. At least
here in Germany. Example (cheapest market prices): Western Digital My
Book for Mac 2TB from 98€, Western Digital My Book Essential 2TB USB 3.0
from 80€, a difference 25%! Actually, for all I know basically the only
difference between the two is the fact, that the Mac version comes
preformatted with the OS X file system (Journaled Filesystem), while the
general version comes with (probably) FAT32 formatting. Ok, some
software add-ons might differ, but I don't need them anyway...

>> Software for Apple devices may cost more (yes, even apps). But in
>> general Apps for iOS devices don't cost (much) more than the very same
>> app for Android devices.
>
> overall, prices are similar for similar specs, whether it's software or
> hardware.

Wrong. Even software differs, my tax software e.g. is 10€ cheaper for
Windows than for the Mac. :-( And here the specs are exactly identical.

You might want to be a bit more careful with generalizing statements... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Bernd Fröhlich]

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

> nothing is perfect. anything can fail.

Nah, I don´t believe you. That is just a baseless rumour.

[nospam]

In article <nlj2n5$iek$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>

wrote:

> >>>>>>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users
> >>>>>>>> since
> >>>>>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like
> >>>>>>>> in-app
> >>>>>>>> purchases anyway).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> no they don't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can very easy prove what I said.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
> >>>>
> >>>> And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
> >>>> statement e.g. in
> >>>> <http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
> >>>> at the two graphs).
> >>>
> >>> that doesn't say what you think it does.
> >>
> >> It does say *exactly* what I think it does: That the revenue with apps
> >> from the corresponding App Stores is (almost) twice as high on the Apple
> >> side than on the Google side.
> >
> > because more apps are sold.
>
> Sure, because more Apple users are willing to pay for their apps. The
> average Android user rather goes for 'free' apps, which make their money
> via displaying ads in the app.

which is entirely different than apple users paying more.

apple users pay roughly the same for apps as android and even windows
phone users. they do *not* pay twice as much. they also pay roughly the
same for similar hardware.

the statement that they pay double is complete utter bullshit.

> > the price a user pays is roughly the same for ios or android. there is
> > no 'apple tax'.
>
> Not here, and I clearly said so.

apple products (apps or hardware) have similar prices for similar specs
*everywhere*.

> >>> his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
> >>
> >> He didn't claim that, he claimed that iOS users spend twice as much than
> >> Android users. He said exactly nothing about spending twice as much on
> >> any given item, the total (cumulated) amount of their spending is
> >> (almost) double that of the Android users.
> >
> > he meant per item.
>
> Nope. But I will not go any further here unless Tatsuki tells us exactly
> what he really meant.

it's clear what he meant.

> > he was attempting to troll that ios users pay more than android users.
>
> My gut feeling: The only one trolling here is you... ;-)

it is't.

the person in question has a history of trolling.

> > they don't.
>
> They do because they buy more.

so what?

> >>> they don't.
> >>
> >> No, they certainly don't. But that's not the point in question.
> >>
> >>> it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.
> >>
> >> Apple products do cost more.
> >
> > no they definitely do not.
>
> I think we can agree on the fact, that the iPhone 6S and the Samsung
> Galaxy S7 are comparably good smartphones (with the S7 ~6 months newer).
> List price for the smallest 6S (all prices in Euro, here in Germany):
> 745¤. List price for the S7: 690¤. That's 8% more for a device which is
> 6 months older (and that is quite a lot of time in this domain).

the difference is meaningless.

here, a samsung galaxy s7 is $700 (at&t) while the iphone 6s is $649,
or $50 *more* for the galaxy s7.

the galaxy note 5 is $739 and the similar size iphone 6s+ is $749, or
$10 less.

the iphone se is $399 and most similar android phones cost more.

> > apple products are competitively priced, and many times, apple products
> > cost *less* than competing products.
>
> Which is sometimes true, sometimes not. ;-)

if it's sometimes true then the claim that apple products cost more is
false.

can't have it both ways.

> > try to match a retina imac 5k in the pc world. it can't be done.
> >
> > a 5k display alone costs roughly what the imac does and then you need
> > to add a computer with a dual video card because 5k can't run over one
> > displayport.
> >
> >> Products for Apple devices may cost more.
> >
> > no they don't, mainly because it's usually the same product for
> > multiple platforms.
>
> Products specifically designed (or at least marketed) for Apple products
> usually cost more. Perhaps not much, but they do cost more.

nope

> At least
> here in Germany.

that has more to do with import fees than any supposed 'apple tax'.

> Example (cheapest market prices): Western Digital My
> Book for Mac 2TB from 98¤, Western Digital My Book Essential 2TB USB 3.0
> from 80¤, a difference 25%!

that's a tax on the stupid.

there is no such thing as a hard drive specific for macs.

*any* western digital, hitachi, seagate or other manufacturer's hard
drive will work perfectly fine.

there may be a premium for certain hardware *interfaces*, such as
thunderbolt which are rarely seen on non-macs (although that's
changing), but any price difference would be due to different specs.

> Actually, for all I know basically the only
> difference between the two is the fact, that the Mac version comes
> preformatted with the OS X file system (Journaled Filesystem), while the
> general version comes with (probably) FAT32 formatting. Ok, some
> software add-ons might differ, but I don't need them anyway...

the format is the only difference, and it takes a few seconds to change
it. savvy users can partition it and have both.

> >> Software for Apple devices may cost more (yes, even apps). But in
> >> general Apps for iOS devices don't cost (much) more than the very same
> >> app for Android devices.
> >
> > overall, prices are similar for similar specs, whether it's software or
> > hardware.
>
> Wrong. Even software differs, my tax software e.g. is 10¤ cheaper for
> Windows than for the Mac. :-( And here the specs are exactly identical.

one example means nothing.

> You might want to be a bit more careful with generalizing statements... ;-)

i'm not the one citing a single example.

[Jolly Roger]

That's not true. Plenty such apps are available on iOS - you just have to
jailbreak to get them. The more correct thing to say is they are not on
Apple's App Store.

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

JR

[Jolly Roger]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> the only home button issue i've had is on an iphone 4 which was known
> to have a problematic home button. the home buttons on every other ios
> device here (roughly a dozen) are working just fine.

Same here. I've had problems with two iPhone 4 home buttons. No such
problem with the home buttons of any other models.

[Jolly Roger]

Bernd Fröhlich <be...@eaglesoft.de> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> the only home button issue i've had is on an iphone 4 which was known
>> to have a problematic home button. the home buttons on every other ios
>> device here (roughly a dozen) are working just fine.
>
> So you are saying that because YOU have no issues with that button,
> neither has anybody else?

Actually many others. You haven't been paying attention.

> Umm, remind me: where is a double-tap used in iOS?
> Can´t remember ever using it.

Many places. I do it frequently. I just double tapped to select words to
delete in this post.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-06, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 01:33:49 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
>>> purchases anyway).
>>
>> no they don't.
>
> I can very easy prove what I said.

*sniff* *sniff* Do I smell our resident lame-ass nym-shifting
Linux/Android troll?

He's changing nyms at an hourly rate these days.

[nospam]

In article <du4sfr...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

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

> On 2016-07-06, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 01:33:49 -0400, nospam wrote:
> >>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> >>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> >>> purchases anyway).
> >>
> >> no they don't.
> >
> > I can very easy prove what I said.
>
> *sniff* *sniff* Do I smell our resident lame-ass nym-shifting
> Linux/Android troll?

yes

> He's changing nyms at an hourly rate these days.

sounds about right.

[Jolly Roger]

Just in the past few days he's gone through AArdvarks, Conradt, Gustl
Hoffmann, and now Tatsuki Takahashi. But he's not fooling anyone but
himself.

[Frank Slootweg]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-07-06, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 01:33:49 -0400, nospam wrote:
> >
> >>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users since
> >>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like in-app
> >>> purchases anyway).
> >>
> >> no they don't.
> >
> > I can very easy prove what I said.
>
> *sniff* *sniff* Do I smell our resident lame-ass nym-shifting
> Linux/Android troll?

I don't think so, because he (Tatsuki Takahashi) is using a real NSP.

And why do you limit our beloved "lame-ass nym-shifting troll" to
"Linux/Android"? Believe me, he can be a jerk about *anything*! :-(

> He's changing nyms at an hourly rate these days.

Yep. Currently he's infesting the newsreader group with yet another
series of non-problems. Well over a hundred 'posts' and counting! :-(
BTW, IIRC the same nym popped up here. Must be a record, the same nym in
(at least) two groups.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-06, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-07-06, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can very easy prove what I said.
>>
>> *sniff* *sniff* Do I smell our resident lame-ass nym-shifting
>> Linux/Android troll?
>
> I don't think so, because he (Tatsuki Takahashi) is using a real NSP.

His conversational style says otherwise. I feel fine putting this one in
the same group because of that even if it's not really him. For
practical purposes, it's him.

> And why do you limit our beloved "lame-ass nym-shifting troll" to
> "Linux/Android"? Believe me, he can be a jerk about *anything*! :-(

I believe it; but he typically trolls Apple news groups flouting Linux
and Android as being superior. So that's the name he gets.

>> He's changing nyms at an hourly rate these days.
>
> Yep. Currently he's infesting the newsreader group with yet another
> series of non-problems. Well over a hundred 'posts' and counting! :-(
> BTW, IIRC the same nym popped up here. Must be a record, the same nym in
> (at least) two groups.

He's a fucking brain-dead loser troll.

[Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> writes:

> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
> > Am 06.07.2016 um 07:56 schrieb nospam:
> >>
> >> nonsense. utility apps are a huge category on ios, many of which are
> >> highly popular, both paid and free.
> >
> > You may have a point here, however I would assume that Tatsuki was
> > talking about a type of utility apps (very low level or technical ones
> > like WiFi scanners e.g.) that simply isn't available on iOS.
>
> That's not true. Plenty such apps are available on iOS - you just have to
> jailbreak to get them. The more correct thing to say is they are not on
> Apple's App Store.

The free Apple app Airport Utility is available in the App Store
and can scan for WiFi networks. No jailbreaking needed.

Martin

[Jolly Roger]

Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nos...@stanford.edu.invalid>
wrote:

Of course.

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

<https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>

Or other utilities that make use of private APIs.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 01:56:41 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> I can very easy prove what I said.
>

> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
>

> the prices of apps as well as in-app purchases on ios are *not* double
> that on android. prices are normally the same on both platforms.
>

>> It's common knowledge that iOS users spend twice as much as Android users
>> on things like in-app purchases.
>
> no it isn't.
>

> what's common knowledge is that more ios users will buy apps than
> android users because people will pay for quality.
>

> as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.
>

>> It's well known that iOS users spend far more than Android users on all
>> apps other than utility apps (which iOS doesn't have because it's a more
>> closed environment that doesn't allow them).
>

> nonsense. utility apps are a huge category on ios, many of which are
> highly popular, both paid and free.

I told you I can easily prove what I said.
You can't prove a word of what you said.

Read this.
https://www.appsflyer.com/resources/state-app-spending-global-benchmarks-data-study/

And this:
http://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/gaming-apps-840x561.png

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 07:49:40 -0400, nospam wrote:

> his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
> they don't.
>
> it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't

My claims were clear, despite your distortions.
You can't even prove a single one of your statements.
Mine are all easily proved.

iOS users spend 2.5x more on in-app purchases than Android users
by: Adam Sinicki, July 1, 2016
http://www.androidauthority.com/new-report-reveals-that-ios-users-spend-2-5-more-on-in-app-purchases-than-android-users-700983/

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 09:16:17 -0400, nospam wrote:

> the price a user pays is roughly the same for ios or android. there is
> no 'apple tax'.

You don't know what you're talking about.

OVERALL:
iOS users spend more on IAPs (no surprise)
The one area where Android out-performs iOS is in utility apps
Shopping apps make the most money
Physical goods sell for more than digital goods
North Americans spend the most on shopping apps
China spends the most on IAPs
Gamers that are willing to pay for IAPs are ¡whales¢
Paying users will go on to spend even more on IAPs

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:02:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> the statement that they pay double is complete utter bullshit.

The only one spouting bs here is you.
Not a single statement you make can you back up.
All mine are proven facts.

Based on this report:
https://www.appsflyer.com/resources/state-app-spending-global-benchmarks-data-study/

1. The average iOS user is 50% more likely to start spending money on
in-app purchases than are Android users.

2. The average purchase amount on iOS is $12.77 versus $6.19 for Android.

3. Android users are 5 times more likely to spend money on utility apps
compared with iOS users, although iOS users still part with more money when
they do invest in this area and will spend double the average Android user
($7.99 vs $3.82) on utility apps.

4. The relative dearth of spending on utility apps for iOS is likely due to
the extremely closed nature of iOS. Things like launchers, multitasking
tools and memory boosters just don¡¦t exist on iOS to the same degree as on
Android, meaning there are far fewer utilities that can be downloaded in
the first place on iOS.

5. Spending on all other categories go to iOS ¡V including gaming.

ON BOTH ANDROID & iOS:

6. Asian users spend 40% more on in-app purchases than other territories
but North American shoppers spend 2.5 times more on average in shopping
apps than those in Europe and 3 times more than Asian shoppers. Trailing
behind with the lowest IAP spend are Latin Americans, at just $0.16.
http://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/regional-iap.png

7. Shopping apps have games beat hands down for IAPs. The average monthly
in-app spend on gaming apps is just $0.32 across platforms, whereas it is
$2.68 for shopping apps.

8. Not surprisingly, the average virtual product sells for $7 (which is
still a healthy amount for an ebook¡K), versus $36.54 for physical items.

9. Even less surpringly, people who pay for apps spend a whopping twenty
times more, or $9.60 per month on IAPs while people who use free apps pay
only a meager $0.50 per month for IAPs.
http://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/paying-users-840x489.png

10. When it comes to gaming, the ¡¥whale phenomenon¡¦ is in full effect. This
refers to the trend where gamers aren¡¦t very likely to spend money on IAPs
(only 3.5% do) but the ones that do are ¡¥whales¡¦ in that they will spend a
lot of money. The 3.5% of gamers happy to spend on IAPs will go on to spend
30 times more than the average gamer overall at $9.39 to $0.32 a month.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 6 Jul 2016 16:40:08 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> That's not true. Plenty such apps are available on iOS - you just have to
> jailbreak to get them. The more correct thing to say is they are not on
> Apple's App Store.

My facts came from here:
https://www.appsflyer.com/resources/state-app-spending-global-benchmarks-data-study/

OVERALL:
iOS users spend more on IAPs (no surprise here)

The one area where Android out-performs iOS is in utility apps
Shopping apps make the most money
Physical goods sell for more than digital goods
North Americans spend the most on shopping apps
China spends the most on IAPs
Gamers that are willing to pay for IAPs are ¡whales¢

Paying users will go on to spend even more on IAP

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 06 Jul 2016 17:42:03 -0700, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu
wrote:

> The free Apple app Airport Utility is available in the App Store
> and can scan for WiFi networks. No jailbreaking needed.

You absolutely can't compare the graphical output from the iOS Airport
Utility with a mature graphical utility like InSSIDer or WiFI Analyzer or
WiFI SNR on Android.

Absolutely nothing on iOS gets even remotely close to the graphical display
of WiFi information in the Android utilities.

You can say graphical displays aren't useful, but there's a reason graphs
exist, instead of just a jumble of disorganized numbers (which is what the
iOS Airport Utility outputs).

Also, unless you leave Airport on all the time, the steps to run it aren't
something to crow about in terms of usability when you compare with how
much easier it is to run the corresponding Android utilities.

Overall, for usability and graphical display of WiFi utilities, Android
wins hands down on the display of WiFi signal strength graphical data.

The Airport Utility text output is a joke when compared to the graphics
available on Android.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-07, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 06 Jul 2016 17:42:03 -0700, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu
> wrote:
>
>> The free Apple app Airport Utility is available in the App Store
>> and can scan for WiFi networks. No jailbreaking needed.
>
> You absolutely can't compare the graphical output from the iOS Airport
> Utility with a mature graphical utility like InSSIDer or WiFI Analyzer or
> WiFI SNR on Android.
>
> Absolutely nothing on iOS gets even remotely close to the graphical display
> of WiFi information in the Android utilities.

Bullshit:

<https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>

> Overall, for usability and graphical display of WiFi utilities, Android
> wins hands down on the display of WiFi signal strength graphical data.

Nope.

Time to change your nym again, BTW. You can run, but you can't hide, old
man.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-07, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2016 16:40:08 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> That's not true. Plenty such apps are available on iOS - you just have to
>> jailbreak to get them. The more correct thing to say is they are not on
>> Apple's App Store.
>
> My facts came from here:

[bullshit omitted]

I know it's hard because you are a lame troll, but do try to stay on
topic. In this sub-thread, we're talking about whether WiFi anaylizer
apps exist for iOS, and they do. Here's just one:

<https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-07, Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:02:49 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> the statement that they pay double is complete utter bullshit.
>
> The only one spouting bs here is you.

No, it's clear you are spewing the bullshit here, as usual.

Time to change your nym again.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 7 Jul 2016 02:57:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Absolutely nothing on iOS gets even remotely close to the graphical display
>> of WiFi information in the Android utilities.
>
> Bullshit:
>
> <https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>
>
>> Overall, for usability and graphical display of WiFi utilities, Android
>> wins hands down on the display of WiFi signal strength graphical data.
>
> Nope.

WiFi Explorer for iOS is only available for jailbroken devices via Cydia.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 7 Jul 2016 02:58:32 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> we're talking about whether WiFi anaylizer
> apps exist for iOS, and they do. Here's just one:
>
> <https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>

WiFi Explorer for iOS is only available for jailbroken devices via Cydia.

[Jolly Roger]

Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 02:57:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Absolutely nothing on iOS gets even remotely close to the graphical display
>>> of WiFi information in the Android utilities.
>>
>> Bullshit:
>>
>> <https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>
>>
>>> Overall, for usability and graphical display of WiFi utilities, Android
>>> wins hands down on the display of WiFi signal strength graphical data.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> WiFi Explorer for iOS is only available for jailbroken devices via Cydia.

I already said that. Do try to keep up.

[Jolly Roger]

Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 02:58:32 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> we're talking about whether WiFi anaylizer
>> apps exist for iOS, and they do. Here's just one:
>>
>> <https://www.adriangranados.com/apps/ios-wifi-explorer>
>
> WiFi Explorer for iOS is only available for jailbroken devices via Cydia.

Which is what I already said and you trims from your reply. Not too bright,
are you?

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Which is what I already said and you trims from your reply. Not too bright,
> are you?

What is percentage of iOS 9 users who has jailbroken devices?

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Which is what I already said and you trims from your reply. Not too bright,
> are you?

What is percentage of iOS 9 users who has jailbroken iOS phone?

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:08 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> I already said that. Do try to keep up.

What is percentage jailbroken iOS device?

[Jolly Roger]

Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Which is what I already said and you trims from your reply. Not too bright,
>> are you?
>
> What is percentage of iOS 9 users who has jailbroken devices?

Irrelevant. I've watched an 8 year old kid do it in 5 minutes. It's
trivial.

Next?

[Jolly Roger]

Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Which is what I already said and you trims from your reply. Not too bright,
>> are you?
>
> What is percentage of iOS 9 users who has jailbroken iOS phone?

Irrelevant. I've watched an 8 year old do it in 5 minutes.

Next?

[Jolly Roger]

Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:08 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> I already said that. Do try to keep up.
>
> What is percentage jailbroken iOS device?

Irrelevant. I've watched an 8 year old do it in 5 minutes.

Next?

[Michael Eyd]

Am 06.07.2016 um 18:02 schrieb nospam:
> In article <nlj2n5$iek$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>

> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd be surprised that expense would ever be an issue for iOS users
>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>> iOS users spend twice as much as do Android users (on things like
>>>>>>>>>> in-app
>>>>>>>>>> purchases anyway).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no they don't.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I can very easy prove what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no you can't, because it's flat out bullshit.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> And you have no clue what you're talking about. Find the proof for his
>>>>>> statement e.g. in
>>>>>> <http://blog.appannie.com/app-annie-index-market-q1-2016/> (take a look
>>>>>> at the two graphs).
>>>>>
>>>>> that doesn't say what you think it does.
>>>>
>>>> It does say *exactly* what I think it does: That the revenue with apps
>>>> from the corresponding App Stores is (almost) twice as high on the Apple
>>>> side than on the Google side.
>>>
>>> because more apps are sold.
>>
>> Sure, because more Apple users are willing to pay for their apps. The
>> average Android user rather goes for 'free' apps, which make their money
>> via displaying ads in the app.
>
> which is entirely different than apple users paying more.
>
> apple users pay roughly the same for apps as android and even windows
> phone users. they do *not* pay twice as much. they also pay roughly the
> same for similar hardware.

>
> the statement that they pay double is complete utter bullshit.
>

>>> the price a user pays is roughly the same for ios or android. there is
>>> no 'apple tax'.
>>

>> Not here, and I clearly said so.
>
> apple products (apps or hardware) have similar prices for similar specs
> *everywhere*.

>
>>>>> his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
>>>>

>>>> He didn't claim that, he claimed that iOS users spend twice as much than
>>>> Android users. He said exactly nothing about spending twice as much on
>>>> any given item, the total (cumulated) amount of their spending is
>>>> (almost) double that of the Android users.
>>>
>>> he meant per item.
>>
>> Nope. But I will not go any further here unless Tatsuki tells us exactly
>> what he really meant.
>
> it's clear what he meant.

He just confirmed that he was *not* talking about price per item. EoD
(for me) here.

>>> he was attempting to troll that ios users pay more than android users.
>>
>> My gut feeling: The only one trolling here is you... ;-)
>
> it is't.
>
> the person in question has a history of trolling.

I know - but this time (for once) he's right.

>>> they don't.
>>
>> They do because they buy more.
>
> so what?

That's exactly the point. Despite all your attempts to change the topic
to item prices...

>>>>> they don't.
>>>>
>>>> No, they certainly don't. But that's not the point in question.
>>>>
>>>>> it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Apple products do cost more.
>>>
>>> no they definitely do not.
>>
>> I think we can agree on the fact, that the iPhone 6S and the Samsung
>> Galaxy S7 are comparably good smartphones (with the S7 ~6 months newer).
>> List price for the smallest 6S (all prices in Euro, here in Germany):
>> 745¤. List price for the S7: 690¤. That's 8% more for a device which is
>> 6 months older (and that is quite a lot of time in this domain).
>
> the difference is meaningless.

a) It isn't.
b) I was only referring to list prices. If I went for actual street
prices the difference would become even bigger, since Apple devices show
traditionally only a very shallow curve in street price vs. time.

> here, a samsung galaxy s7 is $700 (at&t) while the iphone 6s is $649,
> or $50 *more* for the galaxy s7.

That must be a 'new product' tax on the S7... ;-) And will change
shortly, I'm pretty sure.

> the galaxy note 5 is $739 and the similar size iphone 6s+ is $749, or
> $10 less.
>
> the iphone se is $399 and most similar android phones cost more.
>
>>> apple products are competitively priced, and many times, apple products
>>> cost *less* than competing products.
>>
>> Which is sometimes true, sometimes not. ;-)
>
> if it's sometimes true then the claim that apple products cost more is
> false.

As is the claim that Apple products are always comparably priced.

> can't have it both ways.

Neither can you! ;-)

>>> try to match a retina imac 5k in the pc world. it can't be done.
>>>
>>> a 5k display alone costs roughly what the imac does and then you need
>>> to add a computer with a dual video card because 5k can't run over one
>>> displayport.
>>>
>>>> Products for Apple devices may cost more.
>>>
>>> no they don't, mainly because it's usually the same product for
>>> multiple platforms.
>>
>> Products specifically designed (or at least marketed) for Apple products
>> usually cost more. Perhaps not much, but they do cost more.
>
> nope

BS.

>> At least
>> here in Germany.
>
> that has more to do with import fees than any supposed 'apple tax'.

You really want to tell me, that import fees for Apple accessories are
considerably higher than for 'normal' computer/smartphone accessories?
Actually, that's the biggest BS you came up with in a long time... :-)

>> Example (cheapest market prices): Western Digital My
>> Book for Mac 2TB from 98¤, Western Digital My Book Essential 2TB USB 3.0
>> from 80¤, a difference 25%!
>
> that's a tax on the stupid.

Here we completely agree! Yeah! :-)

> there is no such thing as a hard drive specific for macs.

Fully agreed.

> *any* western digital, hitachi, seagate or other manufacturer's hard
> drive will work perfectly fine.
>
> there may be a premium for certain hardware *interfaces*, such as
> thunderbolt which are rarely seen on non-macs (although that's
> changing), but any price difference would be due to different specs.

ACK.

>> Actually, for all I know basically the only
>> difference between the two is the fact, that the Mac version comes
>> preformatted with the OS X file system (Journaled Filesystem), while the
>> general version comes with (probably) FAT32 formatting. Ok, some
>> software add-ons might differ, but I don't need them anyway...
>
> the format is the only difference, and it takes a few seconds to change
> it. savvy users can partition it and have both.

ACK. You know, I know it, but there are many others out there who rather
go the (perceived) 'safe way' and buy the product that is specified to
work with their equipment. And as Apple customers are (much) more likely
to accept higher prices (for various reasons), the vendors get away with
their price policy.

>>>> Software for Apple devices may cost more (yes, even apps). But in
>>>> general Apps for iOS devices don't cost (much) more than the very same
>>>> app for Android devices.
>>>
>>> overall, prices are similar for similar specs, whether it's software or
>>> hardware.
>>
>> Wrong. Even software differs, my tax software e.g. is 10¤ cheaper for
>> Windows than for the Mac. :-( And here the specs are exactly identical.
>
> one example means nothing.

Wrong. One example is proof enough to break a statement trying to cover all.

>> You might want to be a bit more careful with generalizing statements... ;-)
>
> i'm not the one citing a single example.

No, you're the one making generalizing statements, which are simply not
true.

But as already said above, for me the discussion ends here. We're
running around in circles, and I will exit that before I get really
bored. ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Your Name]

In article <nlksgn$1q9d$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 03:56:09 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> > Which is what I already said and you trims from your reply. Not too bright,
> > are you?
>
> What is percentage of iOS 9 users who has jailbroken iOS phone?

Very few. Most people have no idea you can "jailbreak" them nor have
any reason to want to.

Even most people who have "jailbroken" their device don't really know
why they did it nor had any real reason to do so ... other than
boosting their own tiny ego and making themselves feel smug for
"getting one over" on Apple / breaking the rules.

[Blacknoodles]

On 7 Jul 2016 06:47:20 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Irrelevant. I've watched an 8 year old do it in 5 minutes.

Just some friendly advice.
Your credibility suffers when you say such things.
You end up convincing everyone of exactly the opposite of what you want to
say.

[Blacknoodles]

On 7 Jul 2016 06:47:18 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Irrelevant. I've watched an 8 year old kid do it in 5 minutes. It's
> trivial.
>
> Next?

Please do not say such things.

It's like saying you've watched an 8 year old do open heart surgury or
change a waterpump or reinstall an operating system in 5 minutes.

Your statements just convince everyone otherwise.

[Blacknoodles]

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 19:15:31 +1200, Your Name wrote:

> Very few. Most people have no idea you can "jailbreak" them nor have
> any reason to want to.
>
> Even most people who have "jailbroken" their device don't really know
> why they did it nor had any real reason to do so ... other than
> boosting their own tiny ego and making themselves feel smug for
> "getting one over" on Apple / breaking the rules.

I have jailbroken a device.
You couldn't even read how to do so in the time stated.
It's so ridiculous a statement that you just convince people of the
opposite of what you're trying to say.

Jailbreaking is easy if you already have the skills just as open heart
surgury or replacing a water pump or reinstalling an operating system or
flashing a router is easy if you have the skills.

But for you to say what you said is so out of touch with reality that
you're doing us a disservice by convincing everyone of the opposite of what
you're trying to say.

[Jolly Roger]

You speak for yourself and nobody else. And as someone who has jail
broken many devices many times to date, the only credibility that is
suffering here is the person claiming jail breaking is anything but a
trivial task. If an 8 year old can do it for the first time ever in five
minutes without assistance, it's pretty easy to do - certainly not a
significant obstacle to overcome. Click a couple buttons, wait a few
minutes for the process to complete, and you are done. It is literally
that easy to jail break an iOS device. Too bad if you dislike it.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-07, Blacknoodles <Blackn...@singapore.com> wrote:

> On 7 Jul 2016 06:47:18 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Irrelevant. I've watched an 8 year old kid do it in 5 minutes. It's
>> trivial.
>>
>> Next?
>
> Please do not say such things.
>
> It's like saying you've watched an 8 year old do open heart surgury or
> change a waterpump or reinstall an operating system in 5 minutes.

Haha! Good one! It's nothing like that. You clearly have never jail
broken an iOS device. : )

> Your statements just convince everyone otherwise.

Nah, just you.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-07, Blacknoodles <Blackn...@singapore.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 19:15:31 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>
>> Very few. Most people have no idea you can "jailbreak" them nor have
>> any reason to want to.
>>
>> Even most people who have "jailbroken" their device don't really know
>> why they did it nor had any real reason to do so ... other than
>> boosting their own tiny ego and making themselves feel smug for
>> "getting one over" on Apple / breaking the rules.
>
> I have jailbroken a device.

Doubt that. What make and model device?

> You couldn't even read how to do so in the time stated.

You obviously speak for yourself. And you sound very confused.

Download an app, run it, click a couple buttons, wait around five
minutes, and you are done.

> Jailbreaking is easy if you already have the skills just as open heart
> surgury or replacing a water pump or reinstalling an operating system or
> flashing a router is easy if you have the skills.

The skills required are downloading the jailbreak app and clicking
buttons on the screen. Children all around the world do it daily without
issue.

[John McGaw]

On 7/5/2016 11:25 PM, Blacknoodles wrote:
> Anna Scantlin should have stayed on iOS!
> http://www.phonedog.com/2016/06/26/top-10-android-apps-so-far
>
> Recently I rejoined the Android ecosystem with my new(ish) Samsung Galaxy
> S7. It has taken some time to adjust to life away from iOS, and just as I
> had feared, I have been spending an incredible amount of time exploring my
> phone ¡V something I didn¡¦t do a whole lot of on my iPhone.
>

In my decades of of computer experience I've come to the conclusion that
some users simply lack the mental flexibility to adapt while others can
'get over' relatively large changes without a whimper. I see it every time
MS comes out with a new version of Windows and some fraction of users
declare it impossible or unusable. Or change a bit of the user interface on
a daily-use program and listen to the screams of agony -- somehow they've
forgotten that once upon a time they must have learned to perform the
necessary tasks in the first place. Mental ossification is my diagnosis.
Perhaps it comes with age although at 68 years of age I seem to have little
trouble adapting. Maybe I should try switching to iOS just to test (or
punish) myself.

[Your Name]

In article <nllqmr$2lr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Blacknoodles

<Blackn...@singapore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 19:15:31 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Very few. Most people have no idea you can "jailbreak" them nor have
> > any reason to want to.
> >
> > Even most people who have "jailbroken" their device don't really know
> > why they did it nor had any real reason to do so ... other than
> > boosting their own tiny ego and making themselves feel smug for
> > "getting one over" on Apple / breaking the rules.
>
> I have jailbroken a device.

Oh dear, here we go with yet another braindead moron with reading
comprehension issues. :-\

> You couldn't even read how to do so in the time stated.
> It's so ridiculous a statement that you just convince people of the
> opposite of what you're trying to say.
>
> Jailbreaking is easy if you already have the skills just as open heart
> surgury or replacing a water pump or reinstalling an operating system or
> flashing a router is easy if you have the skills.

The facts remain:
- *Most* iOS users haven't jailbroken their device.
- *Most* iOS users wouldn't have a clue what "jailbreaking" is.
- *Most* iOS user have no actual need to jailbreak their devices.
- *Most* of those who do "jailbreak" their device do so simply
to feel smug in overriding Apple's rules, but have no real
need to have done it.

Nowhere does that say "nobody jailbreaks" nor does it say "nobody needs
to jailbreak".

> But for you to say what you said is so out of touch with reality that
> you're doing us a disservice by convincing everyone of the opposite of what
> you're trying to say.

The only ones "out of touch with reality" are the half dozen geek nerds
in these newsgroupos who blindly believe everyone on the planet does
the exact same thing as them and their five geeky friends. Try actually
going outside and seeing REAL people in the REAL world for a change.
:-\

[Frank Slootweg]

[Attributions fscked up courtesy of nospam.]

Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
> Am 06.07.2016 um 18:02 schrieb nospam:
> > In article <nlj2n5$iek$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>
> > wrote:

[...]

> >>>> Apple products do cost more.
> >>>
> >>> no they definitely do not.
> >>
> >> I think we can agree on the fact, that the iPhone 6S and the Samsung
> >> Galaxy S7 are comparably good smartphones (with the S7 ~6 months newer).
> >> List price for the smallest 6S (all prices in Euro, here in Germany):
> >> 745¤. List price for the S7: 690¤. That's 8% more for a device which is
> >> 6 months older (and that is quite a lot of time in this domain).
> >
> > the difference is meaningless.
>
> a) It isn't.
> b) I was only referring to list prices. If I went for actual street
> prices the difference would become even bigger, since Apple devices show
> traditionally only a very shallow curve in street price vs. time.
>
> > here, a samsung galaxy s7 is $700 (at&t) while the iphone 6s is $649,
> > or $50 *more* for the galaxy s7.
>
> That must be a 'new product' tax on the S7... ;-) And will change
> shortly, I'm pretty sure.

I think the issue which nospam seems to be 'forgetting' is that he's
'comparing' Apple prices to non-Apple prices in the *US*, while any sane
person should be comparing prices *outside* the US (also in this case
nospam utters one of his silly false-by-definition absolutes: "apple

products (apps or hardware) have similar prices for similar specs

*everywhere*"), because there are such nasty things like import duties,
etc..

[...]

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-07-07, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> The facts remain:
> - *Most* iOS users haven't jailbroken their device.
> - *Most* iOS users wouldn't have a clue what "jailbreaking" is.
> - *Most* iOS user have no actual need to jailbreak their devices.

You were doing fine until:

> - *Most* of those who do "jailbreak" their device do so simply
> to feel smug in overriding Apple's rules, but have no real
> need to have done it.

You're pulling that statistic right out of your ass.

> Nowhere does that say "nobody jailbreaks" nor does it say "nobody needs
> to jailbreak".

Of course not. And to get us back on topic, the troll that brought this
up was claiming that there are no WiFi scanners for iOS with detailed /
graphical displays, which is incorrect considering there are such
utilities that run on jail broken iOS devices. That's the *only* reason
jail breaking was mentioned to begin with.

[nospam]

In article <nlku9h$k5u$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>
wrote:

> >

> >>>>> his claim is people pay double on ios than android for the same thing.
> >>>>
> >>>> He didn't claim that, he claimed that iOS users spend twice as much than
> >>>> Android users. He said exactly nothing about spending twice as much on
> >>>> any given item, the total (cumulated) amount of their spending is
> >>>> (almost) double that of the Android users.
> >>>
> >>> he meant per item.
> >>
> >> Nope. But I will not go any further here unless Tatsuki tells us exactly
> >> what he really meant.
> >
> > it's clear what he meant.
>
> He just confirmed that he was *not* talking about price per item. EoD
> (for me) here.

then he can't say they spend twice as much.

if he said ios users buy more apps (and they do) that would be fine but
he didn't.

> >>> he was attempting to troll that ios users pay more than android users.
> >>
> >> My gut feeling: The only one trolling here is you... ;-)
> >
> > it is't.
> >
> > the person in question has a history of trolling.
>
> I know - but this time (for once) he's right.

he isn't.

he's trying to turn something into yet another apple-bash attempt.

> >>> they don't.
> >>
> >> They do because they buy more.
> >
> > so what?
>
> That's exactly the point. Despite all your attempts to change the topic
> to item prices...

i'm not changing the topic.

> >>>>> they don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, they certainly don't. But that's not the point in question.
> >>>>
> >>>>> it's a variant of apple products cost more. they don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apple products do cost more.
> >>>
> >>> no they definitely do not.
> >>
> >> I think we can agree on the fact, that the iPhone 6S and the Samsung
> >> Galaxy S7 are comparably good smartphones (with the S7 ~6 months newer).
> >> List price for the smallest 6S (all prices in Euro, here in Germany):
> >> 745¤. List price for the S7: 690¤. That's 8% more for a device which is
> >> 6 months older (and that is quite a lot of time in this domain).
> >
> > the difference is meaningless.
>
> a) It isn't.
> b) I was only referring to list prices. If I went for actual street
> prices the difference would become even bigger, since Apple devices show
> traditionally only a very shallow curve in street price vs. time.

you can't use street prices with price comparisons because different
stores discount products at different times and by different amounts.

every product goes on sale at one time or another and savvy buyers know
when and where to purchase stuff to get the best prices.

put another way, you don't get to compare full retail prices of apple
products with highly discounted clearance prices of non-apple products,
which is what is commonly done.

> > here, a samsung galaxy s7 is $700 (at&t) while the iphone 6s is $649,
> > or $50 *more* for the galaxy s7.
>
> That must be a 'new product' tax on the S7... ;-) And will change
> shortly, I'm pretty sure.

there is no 'new product tax' on anything.

the point is that prices are similar for similar specs.

prices don't need to be *exactly* the same. they can be a few dollars
difference one way or the other.

it would be very different if an iphone was $700 and a samsung s7 was
$350, but it's not. they're both about $700 or so.

there are android phones for $350, but they don't do as much as an
iphone or s7.

lower specs, lower price. simple concept.

> > the galaxy note 5 is $739 and the similar size iphone 6s+ is $749, or
> > $10 less.
> >
> > the iphone se is $399 and most similar android phones cost more.
> >
> >>> apple products are competitively priced, and many times, apple products
> >>> cost *less* than competing products.
> >>
> >> Which is sometimes true, sometimes not. ;-)
> >
> > if it's sometimes true then the claim that apple products cost more is
> > false.
>
> As is the claim that Apple products are always comparably priced.

they are. this is a fact.

> > can't have it both ways.
>
> Neither can you! ;-)

i'm not trying to have it both ways.

> >>> try to match a retina imac 5k in the pc world. it can't be done.
> >>>
> >>> a 5k display alone costs roughly what the imac does and then you need
> >>> to add a computer with a dual video card because 5k can't run over one
> >>> displayport.
> >>>
> >>>> Products for Apple devices may cost more.
> >>>
> >>> no they don't, mainly because it's usually the same product for
> >>> multiple platforms.
> >>
> >> Products specifically designed (or at least marketed) for Apple products
> >> usually cost more. Perhaps not much, but they do cost more.
> >
> > nope
>
> BS.

bs right back.

> >> At least
> >> here in Germany.
> >
> > that has more to do with import fees than any supposed 'apple tax'.
>
> You really want to tell me, that import fees for Apple accessories are
> considerably higher than for 'normal' computer/smartphone accessories?
> Actually, that's the biggest BS you came up with in a long time... :-)

i didn't say that import fees are higher for apple products versus
other products.

i said that the prices of apple products are affected by import fees as
well as foreign exchange rates (which i neglected to mention).

this is particularly true when comparing products made by companies
based in *different* countries. apple is based in the usa while samsung
is based in korea.

> >> Example (cheapest market prices): Western Digital My
> >> Book for Mac 2TB from 98¤, Western Digital My Book Essential 2TB USB 3.0
> >> from 80¤, a difference 25%!
> >
> > that's a tax on the stupid.
>
> Here we completely agree! Yeah! :-)
>
> > there is no such thing as a hard drive specific for macs.
>
> Fully agreed.

then why did you bring it up?

> > *any* western digital, hitachi, seagate or other manufacturer's hard
> > drive will work perfectly fine.
> >
> > there may be a premium for certain hardware *interfaces*, such as
> > thunderbolt which are rarely seen on non-macs (although that's
> > changing), but any price difference would be due to different specs.
>
> ACK.

ack what?

thunderbolt costs more because it's faster, not because it's (mostly)
used with macs.

> >> Actually, for all I know basically the only
> >> difference between the two is the fact, that the Mac version comes
> >> preformatted with the OS X file system (Journaled Filesystem), while the
> >> general version comes with (probably) FAT32 formatting. Ok, some
> >> software add-ons might differ, but I don't need them anyway...
> >
> > the format is the only difference, and it takes a few seconds to change
> > it. savvy users can partition it and have both.
>
> ACK. You know, I know it, but there are many others out there who rather
> go the (perceived) 'safe way' and buy the product that is specified to
> work with their equipment. And as Apple customers are (much) more likely
> to accept higher prices (for various reasons), the vendors get away with
> their price policy.

that's entirely up to the buyer, not any mythical 'apple tax'.

some people pay to have memory installed while others can do it
themselves almost blindfolded.

some people are willing to pay for convenience while others don't mind
a bit of work.

> >>>> Software for Apple devices may cost more (yes, even apps). But in
> >>>> general Apps for iOS devices don't cost (much) more than the very same
> >>>> app for Android devices.
> >>>
> >>> overall, prices are similar for similar specs, whether it's software or
> >>> hardware.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Even software differs, my tax software e.g. is 10¤ cheaper for
> >> Windows than for the Mac. :-( And here the specs are exactly identical.
> >
> > one example means nothing.
>
> Wrong. One example is proof enough to break a statement trying to cover all.

nope. that makes it an exception. there are always exceptions.

overall, apple products are competitively priced. sometimes they cost a
little more and other times they cost a little less.

you can't cherry pick one product (especially one not made by apple)
and then claim everything apple is more expensive.

> >> You might want to be a bit more careful with generalizing statements... ;-)
> >
> > i'm not the one citing a single example.
>
> No, you're the one making generalizing statements, which are simply not
> true.

they absolutely are true.

> But as already said above, for me the discussion ends here. We're
> running around in circles, and I will exit that before I get really
> bored. ;-)

ok

[nospam]

In article <du7uk4...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

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

> >
> > > here, a samsung galaxy s7 is $700 (at&t) while the iphone 6s is $649,
> > > or $50 *more* for the galaxy s7.
> >
> > That must be a 'new product' tax on the S7... ;-) And will change
> > shortly, I'm pretty sure.
>
> I think the issue which nospam seems to be 'forgetting' is that he's
> 'comparing' Apple prices to non-Apple prices in the *US*, while any sane
> person should be comparing prices *outside* the US (also in this case
> nospam utters one of his silly false-by-definition absolutes: "apple
> products (apps or hardware) have similar prices for similar specs
> *everywhere*"), because there are such nasty things like import duties,
> etc..

import duties, foreign exchange rates, etc., are entirely outside of
apple's control.

apple's prices are competitive with similar products. period.

if a a government taxes products coming from the usa, then it's not an
'apple tax', it's a government tax.

prices of apple products in the united kingdom are going to go up in
the coming months, not because of any mythical new 'apple tax', but
because of the effect of brexit on the value of the british pound.

however, the apple haters will still blame apple for hiking prices,
even though it will affect just about everything coming from the usa.

[nospam]

In article <nlkee2$87i$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:

>
> > the price a user pays is roughly the same for ios or android. there is
> > no 'apple tax'.
>

> You don't know what you're talking about.

oh yes i do.

if a company has the same app on both platforms with assorted in-app
purchases, the prices are the same.

[nospam]

In article <nlkejo$90i$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi
<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:

>
> 1. The average iOS user is 50% more likely to start spending money on
> in-app purchases than are Android users.

that's not the same as spending twice as much.

[The Real Bev]

I scream when updates remove something important to me while giving me
something I regard as marginal. Updates to Firefox and Thunderbird in
the last 5 years have been detrimental. The update from Android5 to
Android6 was VERY nice, though.

Three of us have been wrestling with the win7 to win10 update for a
friend's machine, which has steadfastly refused to share anything with
the other [WIRED as well as wireless] machines (laptop, tablets, phones,
guests' devices) on the network. This is the worst so far, boys and girls.

It would be interesting to hear how various new "features" were pitched
at the development meetings for various tech products :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.

[nospam]

In article <nlmmsg$279$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Recently I rejoined the Android ecosystem with my new(ish) Samsung Galaxy
> >> S7. It has taken some time to adjust to life away from iOS, and just as I
> >> had feared, I have been spending an incredible amount of time exploring my

> >> phone ĄV something I didnĄŚt do a whole lot of on my iPhone.

> >
> > In my decades of of computer experience I've come to the conclusion that
> > some users simply lack the mental flexibility to adapt while others can
> > 'get over' relatively large changes without a whimper. I see it every time
> > MS comes out with a new version of Windows and some fraction of users
> > declare it impossible or unusable. Or change a bit of the user interface on
> > a daily-use program and listen to the screams of agony -- somehow they've
> > forgotten that once upon a time they must have learned to perform the
> > necessary tasks in the first place. Mental ossification is my diagnosis.
> > Perhaps it comes with age although at 68 years of age I seem to have little
> > trouble adapting. Maybe I should try switching to iOS just to test (or
> > punish) myself.
>
> I scream when updates remove something important to me while giving me
> something I regard as marginal. Updates to Firefox and Thunderbird in
> the last 5 years have been detrimental. The update from Android5 to
> Android6 was VERY nice, though.

evaluate the changes and decide whether or not to upgrade.

if the upgrade is not to your liking, then don't upgrade. very simple.

> Three of us have been wrestling with the win7 to win10 update for a
> friend's machine, which has steadfastly refused to share anything with
> the other [WIRED as well as wireless] machines (laptop, tablets, phones,
> guests' devices) on the network. This is the worst so far, boys and girls.

then you're doing something very wrong. filesharing is very easy to set
up.

> It would be interesting to hear how various new "features" were pitched
> at the development meetings for various tech products :-(

generally it's based on the requests of users.

companies want to sell products, so they try to make stuff that users
actually want to buy.

[Tatsuki Takahashi]

On 7 Jul 2016 21:10:04 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> - *Most* of those who do "jailbreak" their device do so simply
>> to feel smug in overriding Apple's rules, but have no real
>> need to have done it.
>
> You're pulling that statistic right out of your ass.

You didn't read the article!
That summary was copied from the article!

Don't argue with me.
Argue with author of the article!

[Jolly Roger]

Tatsuki Takahashi <Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 21:10:04 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> - *Most* of those who do "jailbreak" their device do so simply
>>> to feel smug in overriding Apple's rules, but have no real
>>> need to have done it.
>>
>> You're pulling that statistic right out of your ass.
>
> You didn't read the article!

What the fuck are you blabbing about now, dimwit? My response is to Your
Name, idiot. Eat shit and die.

[Your Name]

In article <nln0pa$88h$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Tatsuki Takahashi

<Taka...@asahi.net> wrote:
> On 7 Jul 2016 21:10:04 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >>
> >> - *Most* of those who do "jailbreak" their device do so simply
> >> to feel smug in overriding Apple's rules, but have no real
> >> need to have done it.
> >
> > You're pulling that statistic right out of your ass.
>
> You didn't read the article!
> That summary was copied from the article!
>
> Don't argue with me.
> Argue with author of the article!

There are a few reasons why it may be necessary to jailbreak, but for
most people it's simply not necessary at all and a case of "because I
want to" / "because I can" rather than any *real* *need* to do so.
There's been quite a few times where someone has posted here that they
have or been told they need to jailbreak their iOS device to do XYZ ...
and then someone with an actual brain tells them no they don't because
there is already a way to do what they want without jailbreaking.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:03:06 -0400, John McGaw <Nob...@Nowh.ere> wrote:

>In my decades of of computer experience I've come to the conclusion that
>some users simply lack the mental flexibility to adapt while others can
>'get over' relatively large changes without a whimper. I see it every time
>MS comes out with a new version of Windows and some fraction of users
>declare it impossible or unusable. Or change a bit of the user interface on
>a daily-use program and listen to the screams of agony -- somehow they've
>forgotten that once upon a time they must have learned to perform the
>necessary tasks in the first place. Mental ossification is my diagnosis.
>Perhaps it comes with age although at 68 years of age I seem to have little
>trouble adapting. Maybe I should try switching to iOS just to test (or
>punish) myself.

There are changes for the better, and changes for the worse. There are
changes that make things easier, and changes that make things more
difficult. There are changes that improve productivity, and changes
that harm productivity. Yes, you can get used to doing things the hard
and slow way when you've been used to doing them the quick and easy
way, but you don't have to like it.

I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
70 pages.

On the one I got 4 months ago, the manual was a folded sheet of paper
that showed you how to insert the battery. It did not tell you how to
answer the phone when it rang.


--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

[Jolly Roger]

A designed phone will make that obvious. A manual should not be required
to simply answer a call.

[Jolly Roger]

> A well-designed phone will make that obvious. A manual should not be

> required to simply answer a call.

Corrected typo above.

[nospam]

In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
> I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
> 70 pages.

then it was a very poorly designed phone.

did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.

> On the one I got 4 months ago, the manual was a folded sheet of paper
> that showed you how to insert the battery. It did not tell you how to
> answer the phone when it rang.

that's because it's obvious. there's no need for a manual.

two buttons show up on screen, one is for answering (usually green) and
the other is for rejecting (usually red).

here's what it looks like on an iphone
<http://www.findmyghar.com/escoop/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/apple-3.jpg>

here's what it looks like on android:
<http://innov8tiv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Answer-Calls-on-Android-
Phone-without-Swipe-4.png>
<http://cdn.ilovefreesoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fb-incoming-
call-_thumb.jpg>

it doesn't get any easier than that.

[nospam]

In article <dua8he...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

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

> > I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
> > 70 pages.
> >
> > On the one I got 4 months ago, the manual was a folded sheet of paper
> > that showed you how to insert the battery. It did not tell you how to
> > answer the phone when it rang.
>
> A designed phone will make that obvious. A manual should not be required
> to simply answer a call.

no kidding.

[Steve Hayes]

What should be and what is do not always coincide.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:19:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
>> 70 pages.
>
>then it was a very poorly designed phone.
>
>did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.

Wall phone?

Never had one of those.

[Your Name]

In article <20t0obdht8mgkdkdo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:19:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> >In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> ><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
> >> 70 pages.
> >
> >then it was a very poorly designed phone.
> >
> >did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.
>
> Wall phone?
>
> Never had one of those.

Landline phones* did for a while used to come with manuals, but like
everything else these days the "manual" is a barely there sheet or a
small booklet with the same very basic information written in about 20
different languages.


* That's the more complicated ones ones you buy in the shop from
makers like Panasonic, rather than the really old extremely simple
phones that phone service providers (like British Telecom or
Telecom New Zealand) installed for free.

[Your Name]

In article <20t0obdht8mgkdkdo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:19:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> >In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> ><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
> >> 70 pages.
> >
> >then it was a very poorly designed phone.
> >
> >did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.
>
> Wall phone?
>
> Never had one of those.

Many (For the braindead: *not* *all*) landline phones can be either
desk / table top or wall-mounted.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 17:01:25 +1200, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <20t0obdht8mgkdkdo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:19:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
>> ><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
>> >> 70 pages.
>> >
>> >then it was a very poorly designed phone.
>> >
>> >did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.
>>
>> Wall phone?
>>
>> Never had one of those.
>
>Landline phones* did for a while used to come with manuals, but like
>everything else these days the "manual" is a barely there sheet or a
>small booklet with the same very basic information written in about 20
>different languages.

I have two landline phones, On both you pick up the handset to answer
a call.

I have two non-Android celphones. Both have one button to answer a
call, and an other button to end the call.

On my previous Android phone there were likewise two buttons, one to
answer a call, and the other to end it (there wre several others as
well, including a QWERTY keypad, but those aren't relevant to
answering the phone when it rings).

When I lost that Android phone I got a new one, but it had no buttons,
and so there seemed to be no way to answer a call. So for a couple of
weeks all my calls went unanswered, while I pressed and tapped and
poked all over theb screen in the hope that somewhere there would be a
virtual button that would perfirm the same function as the real button
on the old phone. So I'm not surprised that people have trouble
switching from iOS to Android phones. I was switching from one Android
phone to another and had trouble.

And yes, the phone was badly designed.

If they didn't want to have real puttons, they could have designed it
with virtual buttons that performed the same fuinction as real buttons
on other phones. Or they could have added that essential information
to the little folded card that masqueraded as a manual.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
> > 70 pages.
>
> then it was a very poorly designed phone.
>
> did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.

Of course it did! And yes, many, many pages (per language). Has been
the case ever since 'wall' phones were available for purchase/rent. You
*really* should get out more!

> > On the one I got 4 months ago, the manual was a folded sheet of paper
> > that showed you how to insert the battery. It did not tell you how to
> > answer the phone when it rang.
>
> that's because it's obvious. there's no need for a manual.
>
> two buttons show up on screen, one is for answering (usually green) and
> the other is for rejecting (usually red).
>
> here's what it looks like on an iphone
> <http://www.findmyghar.com/escoop/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/apple-3.jpg>
>
> here's what it looks like on android:
> <http://innov8tiv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Answer-Calls-on-Android-
> Phone-without-Swipe-4.png>
> <http://cdn.ilovefreesoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fb-incoming-
> call-_thumb.jpg>
>
> it doesn't get any easier than that.

If "it's obvious" and "it doesn't get any easier than that", then why
do pages like the ones you mentioned even exist!?

And no, my Android phone doesn't look anything like on those pages.

BTW, never mind responding, we (YTIW) already know that you know it
all and 'better' than anybody else. This is just to show others how
silly your opinions are.

[Frank Slootweg]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2016 18:08:47 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >On 2016-07-08, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

[...]

> >> On the one I got 4 months ago, the manual was a folded sheet of paper
> >> that showed you how to insert the battery. It did not tell you how to
> >> answer the phone when it rang.
> >
> >A designed phone will make that obvious. A manual should not be required
> >to simply answer a call.
>
> What should be and what is do not always coincide.

[Not limited to answering a call:]

In general, - apps on - smart-phones and tablets are anything *but*
"obvious".

That's understandable, because there's little screen real-estate for
anything other than - often rather meaningless - icons.

It's made worse by the absence of on-device help. That's also
understandable, because - compared to a laptop.etc - storage is rather
limited on these devices.

The final killer is that most apps also do not have any decent on-line
(website, etc.) help/documentation.

[nospam]

In article <duc5pb...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

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

> >
> > did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.
>
> Of course it did! And yes, many, many pages (per language). Has been
> the case ever since 'wall' phones were available for purchase/rent. You
> *really* should get out more!

complete bullshit.

where's the user manual for this??
<http://blog.retroplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/bell-telephone-k
itchen.jpg>

or maybe a desk phone instead?
<http://wnytreasures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Vintage-Western-Elec
tric-Black-Desk-Office-Rotary-Telephone-Old-Phone-1.jpg>

here's a clue: there wasn't one. just buttons or a rotary dial. no user
manual.

> > > On the one I got 4 months ago, the manual was a folded sheet of paper
> > > that showed you how to insert the battery. It did not tell you how to
> > > answer the phone when it rang.
> >
> > that's because it's obvious. there's no need for a manual.
> >
> > two buttons show up on screen, one is for answering (usually green) and
> > the other is for rejecting (usually red).
> >
> > here's what it looks like on an iphone
> > <http://www.findmyghar.com/escoop/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/apple-3.jpg>
> >
> > here's what it looks like on android:
> > <http://innov8tiv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Answer-Calls-on-Android-
> > Phone-without-Swipe-4.png>
> > <http://cdn.ilovefreesoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fb-incoming-
> > call-_thumb.jpg>
> >
> > it doesn't get any easier than that.
>
> If "it's obvious" and "it doesn't get any easier than that", then why
> do pages like the ones you mentioned even exist!?

because web sites are ad-supported and want the traffic.

if you think someone *needs* to visit a web page such as one of those
to figure out how to answer a call then you're dumber than i thought.

> And no, my Android phone doesn't look anything like on those pages.

so what.

[nospam]

In article <duc5pb...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>

> In general, - apps on - smart-phones and tablets are anything *but*
> "obvious".
>
> That's understandable, because there's little screen real-estate for
> anything other than - often rather meaningless - icons.
>
> It's made worse by the absence of on-device help. That's also
> understandable, because - compared to a laptop.etc - storage is rather
> limited on these devices.
>
> The final killer is that most apps also do not have any decent on-line
> (website, etc.) help/documentation.

all incorrect.

[nospam]

In article <89d1obdcgu0n6kdjl...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>
> I have two non-Android celphones. Both have one button to answer a
> call, and an other button to end the call.
>
> On my previous Android phone there were likewise two buttons, one to
> answer a call, and the other to end it (there wre several others as
> well, including a QWERTY keypad, but those aren't relevant to
> answering the phone when it rings).
>
> When I lost that Android phone I got a new one, but it had no buttons,

all android phones have buttons, although many of them are on-screen
now.

> and so there seemed to be no way to answer a call. So for a couple of
> weeks all my calls went unanswered, while I pressed and tapped and
> poked all over theb screen in the hope that somewhere there would be a
> virtual button that would perfirm the same function as the real button
> on the old phone. So I'm not surprised that people have trouble
> switching from iOS to Android phones. I was switching from one Android
> phone to another and had trouble.

you tap the answer button, which appears when a call comes in.

> And yes, the phone was badly designed.
>
> If they didn't want to have real puttons, they could have designed it
> with virtual buttons that performed the same fuinction as real buttons
> on other phones.

they did design it with virtual buttons.

> Or they could have added that essential information
> to the little folded card that masqueraded as a manual.

no need.

[tlvp]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:19:15 -0400, nospam wrote:

> then it was a very poorly designed phone.

As are many. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[Your Name]

In article <89d1obdcgu0n6kdjl...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 17:01:25 +1200, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <20t0obdht8mgkdkdo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> ><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:19:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >In article <bgpvnb9420g6v8utj...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
> >> ><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I learnt how to use my first cell phone by RTFM. The manual was about
> >> >> 70 pages.
> >> >
> >> >then it was a very poorly designed phone.
> >> >
> >> >did the wall phone in your house come with a manual? no.
> >>
> >> Wall phone?
> >>
> >> Never had one of those.
> >
> >Landline phones* did for a while used to come with manuals, but like
> >everything else these days the "manual" is a barely there sheet or a
> >small booklet with the same very basic information written in about 20
> >different languages.
>
> I have two landline phones, On both you pick up the handset to answer
> a call.

<snip>

Our old wireless landline phone answered the call when you picked it up
from the charging cradle, but with the new one you have to pick it up
and then press the green answer button.

[Steve Hayes]

On 9 Jul 2016 11:34:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

Yup. My current phone came with a lot of apps with no indication of
what they do. I haven't deleted them, because they may turn out to be
useful, or even essential for the working of the phone. For example,
there's one called "Deezer". There's another one called "Play Books".
"Play Music" and "Play Games" I can guess, but Play Books?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:07:29 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <89d1obdcgu0n6kdjl...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have two non-Android celphones. Both have one button to answer a
>> call, and an other button to end the call.
>>
>> On my previous Android phone there were likewise two buttons, one to
>> answer a call, and the other to end it (there wre several others as
>> well, including a QWERTY keypad, but those aren't relevant to
>> answering the phone when it rings).
>>
>> When I lost that Android phone I got a new one, but it had no buttons,
>
>all android phones have buttons, although many of them are on-screen
>now.
>
>> and so there seemed to be no way to answer a call. So for a couple of
>> weeks all my calls went unanswered, while I pressed and tapped and
>> poked all over theb screen in the hope that somewhere there would be a
>> virtual button that would perfirm the same function as the real button
>> on the old phone. So I'm not surprised that people have trouble
>> switching from iOS to Android phones. I was switching from one Android
>> phone to another and had trouble.
>

f>you tap the answer button, which appears when a call comes in.

>
>> And yes, the phone was badly designed.
>>
>> If they didn't want to have real puttons, they could have designed it
>> with virtual buttons that performed the same fuinction as real buttons
>> on other phones.
>
>they did design it with virtual buttons.
>
>> Or they could have added that essential information
>> to the little folded card that masqueraded as a manual.
>
>no need.

If you have no need to answer phone calls, yes.

[Your Name]

In article <78n3obhgn7r9qvveo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes

<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> Yup. My current phone came with a lot of apps with no indication of
> what they do. I haven't deleted them, because they may turn out to be
> useful, or even essential for the working of the phone. For example,
> there's one called "Deezer". There's another one called "Play Books".
> "Play Music" and "Play Games" I can guess, but Play Books?

"Play" (or more precisely "Google Play") is just the Google / Android
version of Apple's iTunes / App Store ( http://play.google.com ). It's
simply where you go to get those types of products: ebooks, music, and
game apps. Some will be free others you have to pay for. Probably best
not to delete those.

"Deezer" is yet another of the multitude of music web-streaming
services around ( http://www.deezer.com/en/ ). This one you can
probably delete if you don't want it. Check the Google Play app site
and you'll likely find you can download it again for free if you ever
want it back.

[Gordon Levi]

That's usually a user selectable option. Check the "Settings" menu.

[Your Name]

In article <6kp3obhh50ng2itcr...@4ax.com>, Gordon Levi

There is an "Auto Talk" option (on and off) which might be it, but I
don't really want to muck about with the phone now everyone has gotten
used to it. :-)

[Gordon Levi]

It's safe. If the phone has been set to answer when it is removed from
the cradle and someone presses the green button it will still be in
answer mode.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 17:55:00 +1200, Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <78n3obhgn7r9qvveo...@4ax.com>, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yup. My current phone came with a lot of apps with no indication of
>> what they do. I haven't deleted them, because they may turn out to be
>> useful, or even essential for the working of the phone. For example,
>> there's one called "Deezer". There's another one called "Play Books".
>> "Play Music" and "Play Games" I can guess, but Play Books?
>
>"Play" (or more precisely "Google Play") is just the Google / Android
>version of Apple's iTunes / App Store ( http://play.google.com ). It's
>simply where you go to get those types of products: ebooks, music, and
>game apps. Some will be free others you have to pay for. Probably best
>not to delete those.

First it was Android Market, then it became Google Play Store -- now
you play books on it?

>"Deezer" is yet another of the multitude of music web-streaming
>services around ( http://www.deezer.com/en/ ). This one you can
>probably delete if you don't want it. Check the Google Play app site
>and you'll likely find you can download it again for free if you ever
>want it back.

Thanks for the info.

So Deezer plays music, but Play Music doesn't?

They're really trying hard to mysify people!