On 2025-06-15 09:20, Marion wrote:
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
One less place for dirt, dust and water to be able to enter.
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
Not to mention more internal space for MODERN components. SD cards are 26 years old. Move on.
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
For whom ? You ? Us ? The manufacturers ?
Tyrone wrote:
Not to mention more internal space for MODERN components. SD cards are 26 >> years old. Move on.
Enjoy your 1/100th of a cubic inch for a microSD
The only advantage of an SD card slot is, that you can expand the memory
if needed - but since even main stream devices come with at least 64 or
128 GB of memory I personally never missed SD cards any longer.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 19:16:46 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The only advantage of an SD card slot is, that you can expand the memory
if needed - but since even main stream devices come with at least 64 or
128 GB of memory I personally never missed SD cards any longer.
Please don't spread nonsense, Arno.
Note that Arno spread the nonsense that the only use of sd is for expansion memory, and Arno spread the nonsense FUD about bad memory blocks, but that just shows Arno doesn't understand what an sd slot is and why it's there.
All else being equal, a phone WITHOUT the sd slot is always a vastly substandard phone than one with it *for the user*.
That's because it's *impossible* to replace its functionality without it.
To answer your question, it's *impossible* for there to be an advantage to the user but it's clearly a huge financial advantage to the phone makers!
Please don't spread nonsense, Arno.
Which nonsense?
Currently I use a Pixel 6a - a mainstream "entry level" device which
already has 128 GB memory. And it has still around 38 GB free. The app
list tells me, that there are 228 apps installed. I also use OsmAnd with
many offline maps on the device, have many pictures and a lot of music
on it, K9 mail with 5 IMAP accounts connected and so on.
Maybe when you install a lot of games memory may be an issue - but for
gaming you may want to get a more powerful device anyway and these often
come with 256 or 512 GB memory.
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
For whom ? You ? Us ? The manufacturers ?
Ah, you bring up the most important point of all, Rudy.
AFAIK, there is only one advantage to NOT having an sd slot.
And that is "someone else" gets to make a lot of money off of your
need for portable storage and especially your need for future portable storage.
A *lot* of money.
Note that Arno spread the nonsense that the only use of sd is for
expansion memory, and Arno spread the nonsense FUD about bad memory
blocks, but that just shows Arno doesn't understand what an sd slot
is and why it's there.
All else being equal, a phone WITHOUT the sd slot is always a vastly substandard phone than one with it *for the user*.
That's because it's *impossible* to replace its functionality without it.
To your point, cloud storage companies make a bundle off of people who
have phones without sd slots, as do the phone makers themselves make a bundle.
To answer your question, it's *impossible* for there to be an
advantage to the user but it's clearly a huge financial advantage
to the phone makers!
Which is exactly why they do it.
It's not for you.
It's for them.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:12:36 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Please don't spread nonsense, Arno.
Which nonsense?
The only one who wins by you NOT having an SD card is the manufacturer.
And cloud sellers.
The only advantage of an SD card slot is, that you can expand the memory
if needed - but since even main stream devices come with at least 64 or
128 GB of memory I personally never missed SD cards any longer.
Marion,
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
For whom ? You ? Us ? The manufacturers ? Someone else ?
And which kind of slot are you asking about ? An external ? An
internal ? Both ?
IOW, when you ask over-broad (not really thought about?) questions you
get responses you can't use, wasting others as well as your own time.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-15 09:20, Marion wrote:
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
One less place for dirt, dust and water to be able to enter.
Do phones with SD slots meet the appropriate rating as those without SD slots?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 19:16:46 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The only advantage of an SD card slot is, that you can expand the memory
if needed - but since even main stream devices come with at least 64 or
128 GB of memory I personally never missed SD cards any longer.
Please don't spread nonsense, Arno.
Bottom line: You think you still need an sd-card, but have not even tried to explain what for, and have concocted a paranoia "they are out to get us" story to make it sound as if its *really* needed.
It's cheaper for the manufacturers.
And yes, this is the ONE AND ONLY(!!!) advantage!
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
One less place for dirt, dust and water to be able to enter.
Do phones with SD slots meet the appropriate rating as those without SD
slots?
I'm sure some do.
I'm sure that engineering them to make that happen also costs money.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 15:29:02 -0700, Alan wrote:
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
One less place for dirt, dust and water to be able to enter.
Do phones with SD slots meet the appropriate rating as those without SD
slots?
I'm sure some do.
I'm sure that engineering them to make that happen also costs money.
Thank the oem's pass all that unspent money back to the customer.
I agree that having an SD slot in a phone might be a bit less useful now phones have more built-in storage than they used to have.
Yes, having an *optional* slot for an SD card may be useful
for some cases - but I don't see the absolute need for this any longer compared to the past days where a device without an SD card was more or
less useless since the available internal memory was sometimes even less
than 4 GB in entry level devices (like the HTC Wildfire S with only 512
MB memory
I agree that having an SD slot in a phone might be a bit less useful now
phones have more built-in storage than they used to have.
My first android phone is the only one I've owned with an SD card slot,
and it really did need it to move partitions from the builtin storage to
the card and increase the amount of swap space.
Current phone has 16x the memory and 64x the storage, neither feel near
the limit like that old phone did ...
Well - SD cards are memory. So why do you say it is nonsense that the
main use for SD cards is to have more memory in your device?
I've been working in the IT industry for more 30 years and also develop software for Android (also see <https://github.com/arnowelzel>) - professionally and in Open Source projects.
How many SD cards did you use in your life? As part of my job I used and tested a few hundreds of them over the last 20 years. And yes, some SD
cards *do* fail unexpected and not all smartphones work fine with every
brand of SD cards.
All else being equal, a phone WITHOUT the sd slot is always a vastly
substandard phone than one with it *for the user*.
That's because it's *impossible* to replace its functionality without it.
Well - when I have 128 or 256 GB memory built in to a phone, I don't
have to replace anything. It is just there.
To answer your question, it's *impossible* for there to be an advantage to >> the user but it's clearly a huge financial advantage to the phone makers!
For me it is an adavantage to have internal memory which can be accessed
with 200-300 MB/s compared to just 10-20 MB/s which is usually provided
by SD cards.
Yes, having an *optional* slot for an SD card may be useful
for some cases - but I don't see the absolute need for this any longer compared to the past days where a device without an SD card was more or
less useless since the available internal memory was sometimes even less
than 4 GB in entry level devices (like the HTC Wildfire S with only 512
MB memory which required an SD card just to be able to use the camera
for more than just a few pictures etc.).
The reality is that:
A. It's the moronic know-nothing troll "Marion" / "Arlen",
best completely ignored.
B. Most users don't even know what an SD card is, let alone need or want
to bother to ever use one.
At best they get conned into buying an over-priced internal one when
they buy the Android phone by the greedy commission
saleperson.
Apples to apples, a phone without sd capability is a crappier
phone. Because it can't do what a phone with sd capability
can do - that's why.
I know you're capable of understanding technical nuances, and
while I also understand them, first I'll say I will never disagree
with a sensibly logical argument. What I disagreed with was portable
memory is not the same as portable storage - even as both are
clearly using "memory" cards.
The difference matters.
And I haven't seen a single argument where you can *replace* the
portable storage functionality with any amount of internal storage.
Bottom line: You think you still need an sd-card, but have not even tried
to
explain what for, and have concocted a paranoia "they are out to get us"
story to make it sound as if its *really* needed.
Which is Marion's standard MO.
Make a LOT of claims, but they are never a reflection of reality.
His whole point is to make iPhones "look bad". Thus, iPhones are
"inferior" because they lack legacy ports that are no longer needed.
I have not fiddled with SD cards for about 15 years.
You install iCloud on the Windows PCS and all your pics are
*automatically* copied over.
My iPhones and iPads have a minimum of 256GB, and I have iPad Pros with
1TB. So why do I still need to fiddle about with slow, obsolete SD cards?
Marion will claim that legacy crap like SD cards and headphone jacks are "industry standards".
But SD cards are 26 years old and headphone jacks are about 80 years old. Neither are needed in the wireless age. Yes, you CAN still do it manually.
Sorry, but I no longer want to do that. I prefer to live in 2025, not
2005.
So, my tentative conclusion is 64GB is a perfectly fine amount, even today. As long as you have portable storage capability.
I wouldn't dream of purchasing a crappy Pixel or iPhone with that little. Because you can't increase the portable storage with crappy phones.
So, my tentative conclusion is 64GB is a perfectly fine amount, even
today.
As long as you have portable storage capability.
I wouldn't dream of purchasing a crappy Pixel or iPhone with that little.
Because you can't increase the portable storage with crappy phones.
They haven't sold any Pixels with that little since 2018
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:07:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :
A phone without a built-in pocket knife is a crappier phone, becase...I agree that having an SD slot in a phone might be a bit less useful now >>> phones have more built-in storage than they used to have.
My first android phone is the only one I've owned with an SD card slot,
and it really did need it to move partitions from the builtin storage to
the card and increase the amount of swap space.
Current phone has 16x the memory and 64x the storage, neither feel near
the limit like that old phone did ...
Apples to apples, a phone without sd capability is a crappier phone.
Because it can't do what a phone with sd capability can do - that's why.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 22:09:24 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
It's cheaper for the manufacturers.
And yes, this is the ONE AND ONLY(!!!) advantage!
While it's cheaper for the manufacturers, that's NOT why they do it.
Notice *who* does it.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-15 09:20, Marion wrote:
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
One less place for dirt, dust and water to be able to enter.
Do phones with SD slots meet the appropriate rating as those without SD slots?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:07:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :
I agree that having an SD slot in a phone might be a bit less useful now >>> phones have more built-in storage than they used to have.
My first android phone is the only one I've owned with an SD card slot,
and it really did need it to move partitions from the builtin storage to
the card and increase the amount of swap space.
Current phone has 16x the memory and 64x the storage, neither feel near
the limit like that old phone did ...
Apples to apples, a phone without sd capability is a crappier phone.
Because it can't do what a phone with sd capability can do - that's why.
For "minimum" specs, my free 2021 Galaxy A32-5G has a thousand apps on it. The 64GB permanent storage is holding all that with a bit of room to spare.
So, my tentative conclusion is 64GB is a perfectly fine amount, even today. As long as you have portable storage capability.
I wouldn't dream of purchasing a crappy Pixel or iPhone with that little. Because you can't increase the portable storage with crappy phones.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:26:10 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :[...]
Well - when I have 128 or 256 GB memory built in to a phone, I don't
have to replace anything. It is just there.
Heh heh heh... That's the whole point!
You got fleeced.
And you don't even realize you were fleeced.
You're a whale.
Even so, you *still* lost functionality with your crappy phone, Arno.
As far as anyone has stated so far, it is *impossible* for you to replace
the functionality you lost by buying that crappy phone.
Explain to all of us how you can replace the lost functionality?
For me it is an adavantage to have internal memory which can be accessed
with 200-300 MB/s compared to just 10-20 MB/s which is usually provided
by SD cards.
OK. The speed is important. That's a valid point. I will NEVER disagree
with anyone (even an Apple troll) who makes a logically sensible point.
Yes. The data you store on an sd card (typically photos & videos) are accessed much slower than if you stored that same data in internal memory.
How much of a difference does it make?
I do not know.
Do you?
On 2025-06-16 00:51, Marion wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:07:28 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :A phone without a built-in pocket knife is a crappier phone, becase...
I agree that having an SD slot in a phone might be a bit less useful now >>>> phones have more built-in storage than they used to have.
My first android phone is the only one I've owned with an SD card slot,
and it really did need it to move partitions from the builtin storage to >>> the card and increase the amount of swap space.
Current phone has 16x the memory and 64x the storage, neither feel near
the limit like that old phone did ...
Apples to apples, a phone without sd capability is a crappier phone.
Because it can't do what a phone with sd capability can do - that's why.
Even so, you *still* lost functionality with your crappy phone, Arno.
Nope. I don't need that functionality - no matter, how often you try to repeat that.
As far as anyone has stated so far, it is *impossible* for you to replace
the functionality you lost by buying that crappy phone.
Well - I don't care, I don't need that functionality anyway.
And when
one day a phone will provide 1 TB of memory - I will get buy it. And
yes, this day will come. There are already device with 512 GB internal
memory available.
Explain to all of us how you can replace the lost functionality?
Why should I replace anything? It works as it is.
For me it is an adavantage to have internal memory which can be accessed >>> with 200-300 MB/s compared to just 10-20 MB/s which is usually provided
by SD cards.
OK. The speed is important. That's a valid point. I will NEVER disagree
with anyone (even an Apple troll) who makes a logically sensible point.
Yes. The data you store on an sd card (typically photos & videos) are
accessed much slower than if you stored that same data in internal memory. >>
How much of a difference does it make?
For me - a lot. I can see that every time, when FolderSync synchronizes
*ALL* data with *MY OWN* server!
The difference matters.
And you *still* haven't mentioned which usage you are ranting about.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:42:04 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
If it's "the exact same phone", but one of them has an SD card...Even so, you *still* lost functionality with your crappy phone, Arno.
Nope. I don't need that functionality - no matter, how often you try to
repeat that.
Hi Arno,
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
Even if it's the exact same phone.
The difference matters.
And you *still* haven't mentioned which usage you are ranting
about.
A phone without the sd card is always an inferior phone to one
with it (all else being equal) because sd cards do things which
are impossible to do any other way (even with the cloud).
Why do you think Apple/Google promote phones w/o the sd card
slot? They're not stupid.
They *know* a phone without sd will always cost more than one
with it.
Given a phone without sd is always vastly inferior in capability
to one with it (all else being equal),
here is what I love about portable storage. [snip]
Try *that* with a crappy substandard phone that doesn't have an
sd slot! It's impossible.
A phone without the sd card is always an inferior phone to one with
it (all else being equal) because sd cards do things which are
impossible to do any other way (even with the cloud).
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 19:16:46 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The only advantage of an SD card slot is, that you can expand the memory
if needed - but since even main stream devices come with at least 64 or
128 GB of memory I personally never missed SD cards any longer.
Please don't spread nonsense, Arno.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:42:04 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Even so, you *still* lost functionality with your crappy phone, Arno.
Nope. I don't need that functionality - no matter, how often you try to
repeat that.
Hi Arno,
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
Do phones with SD slots meet the appropriate rating as those without SD
slots?
Yes, since the tray for the SIM card is often in combination with the SD
card and those trays usually contain a rubber gasket as protection
agains water and dirt.
Since it's Apple/Google mostly who remove functionality
On 2025-06-17 03:48, Marion wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:42:04 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Even so, you *still* lost functionality with your crappy phone, Arno.
Nope. I don't need that functionality - no matter, how often you try to
repeat that.
Hi Arno,
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be
inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
WHY?
I don't see the logic.
I don't need a memory card in years. I have not felt the need. And no, I don't pay anybody.
(and my phone does have the slot)
And please remember to be polite and accept gracefully other people
opinions.
...Although that can be true for Apple, Google doesn't build Android
phones.
Who builds the Pixel?
...Although that can be true for Apple, Google doesn't build Android
phones.
Who builds the Pixel?
My mistake. I should have said "doesn't build *all* Android phones".
The fact is if you take two phones (otherwise equal), one with an sd card
and one without, the one with the sd card will*always* be vastly more functional (and less expensive) than the one with it if you need functionality.
Of course, if you don't need functionality, then it won't matter.
But even Arno said, in effect, since he didn't buy a phone with an sd slot, that he had to pay a*lot* to get a phone with more internal storage.
And even then, it's*impossible* to replace what an sd card actually does.
The point is there is no advantage to not having an sd card.
Only disadvantages that need to be overcome (by paying a*lot* of money!)
That's why they remove it.
Marion wrote:
Apple removes functionality (such as the aux jack) and then tells
people it's good for them - when - in reality - it's a strategy of
removing basic functionality so that the customer has to scramble to
purchase it back.
They also removed the fingerprint sensor but did replace it with
FaceID. Some may say FaceID is superior, but I preferred the
functionality of the Home button/sensor
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:21:28 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
...Although that can be true for Apple, Google doesn't build Android
phones.
Who builds the Pixel?
My mistake. I should have said "doesn't build *all* Android phones".
I'm glad badgolferman is on the ball here, and that Rudy clarified what he meant, where Usenet is a one-way-at-a-time medium which is off the cuff.
So omissions of detail happen naturally.
A quick correction is always a good thing.
My main point isn't really about sd cards but about the fact that people
are fooled by the (brilliant) marketing of the likes of Apple/Google.
Apple removes functionality (such as the aux jack) and then tells people
it's good for them - when - in reality - it's a strategy of removing basic functionality so that the customer has to scramble to purchase it back.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:31:36 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
The difference matters.
And you *still* haven't mentioned which usage you are ranting about.
A phone without the sd card is always an inferior phone to one with it (all else being equal) because sd cards do things which are impossible to do any other way (even with the cloud).
Why do you think Apple/Google promote phones w/o the sd card slot?
They're not stupid.
And you *still* haven't mentioned which usage you are ranting about.
A phone without the sd card is always an inferior phone to one with it
(all
else being equal) because sd cards do things which are impossible to do
any
other way (even with the cloud).
Only if the internal storage is not enough.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:42:04 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Even so, you *still* lost functionality with your crappy phone, Arno.
Nope. I don't need that functionality - no matter, how often you try to
repeat that.
Hi Arno,
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
Marion,
Since it's Apple/Google mostly who remove functionality
Although that can be true for Apple, Google doesn't build Android phones.
badgolferman,
...
Although that can be true for Apple, Google doesn't build Android
phones.
Who builds the Pixel?
My mistake. I should have said "doesn't build *all* Android phones".
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
You are arguing, without clearly saying so, that it is cheaper to buy a
phone with smaller internal storage, and compensate by inserting a large memory card (which is cheaper). And treating as stupid the people that
do not agree with your hidden argument.
Maybe.
But, for example, when I am offered the same model of a phone in several versions, the one with more internal storage also has more internal ram,
and a few other things.
As other have said, the internal storage is way faster than external
memory cards, and have a much lower failure rate.
And the card slot
means that it is more difficult, perhaps impossible, to waterproof the
phone.
You may say that you do not mind waterproofness, but that's your
opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Me, I have lost
a phone to water, so to me it is important.
Apple removes functionality (such as the aux jack) and then tells
people it's good for them - when - in reality - it's a strategy of
removing basic functionality so that the customer has to scramble to >>purchase it back.
They also removed the fingerprint sensor but did replace it with
FaceID. Some may say FaceID is superior, but I preferred the
functionality of the Home button/sensor
Apple removes functionality (such as the aux jack) and then tells people
it's good for them - when - in reality - it's a strategy of removing basic >> functionality so that the customer has to scramble to purchase it back.
No, Apple never told people, that it is "good for them" not to have an
aux jack. They just said, that there are better alternatives, like
Bluetooth, since many people don't like to use cables anyway.
And even Fairphone removed the aux jack with the Fairphone 4 - and
Fairphone is the company, which offers phones easy to repair and
sustainable. So to say Fairphone is just following apple, because they
are greedy and want to sell their cloud service is a bit far fetched.
Fairphone even offers sustainable Bluetooth headsets where you can
replace the batteries:
<https://shop.fairphone.com/fairbuds-xl>
It's cheaper for the manufacturers.
And yes, this is the ONE AND ONLY(!!!) advantage!
While it's cheaper for the manufacturers, that's NOT why they do it.
Wrong, that is the reason.
Notice *who* does it.
Nearly everyone, not just Google.
Whatever Apple does, the Android makers all eventually follow. Samsung
is especially bad at making fun of Apple for doing something (removing headphone jack, not including the charger, etc.), only for Samsung to
then copy the exact same thing in their next model release. :-\
If Apple supposedly has no innovation, what does that imply for all the
lazy copy-cat Android makers??
The fingerprint sensor was also a gimmick.
If we don't live in the slums, why would we need it?
The only advantage of an SD card slot is, that you can expand the memory >>> if needed - but since even main stream devices come with at least 64 or
128 GB of memory I personally never missed SD cards any longer.
Please don't spread nonsense, Arno.
You asked for opinions. Please be respectful and accept other people
opinions gracefully.
Apples to apples, a phone without sd capability is a crappier phone.
Because it can't do what a phone with sd capability can do - that's why.
For me the quality of a phone is define by *many* *more* features beside having an SD card or not.
For example having security update for at least 5-8 years is much more important for me than having an SD card slot.
Also having vanilla
Android instead of some manufacturer UI makes things much easier.
For "minimum" specs, my free 2021 Galaxy A32-5G has a thousand apps on it. >> The 64GB permanent storage is holding all that with a bit of room to spare.
Well - if you really need 1000(!) apps, then you need a lot of storage.
But I can not even fathom why one would need 1000(!) apps on a device.
I have less than 300 apps and 128 GB internal memory on a device which
will get another three years of security updates.
So, my tentative conclusion is 64GB is a perfectly fine amount, even today. >> As long as you have portable storage capability.
I wouldn't dream of purchasing a crappy Pixel or iPhone with that little.
Because you can't increase the portable storage with crappy phones.
And I *love* this phone! Everything works just as expected and with
*vanilla* Android on it and not that crappy Samsung UI and all that
Samsung bloatware apps.
And no - I do *not* use *any* Google cloud services. I run my own
Nextlcoud server where I keep *all* my data - address book, calendar, pictures, music and so on...
I wouldn't use a Samsung phone without installing LineageOS first to get
at least a decent Android version.
Marion wrote:
The fingerprint sensor was also a gimmick.
If we don't live in the slums, why would we need it?
Is there zero burglary in your neighbourhood?
Do you ever leave your house?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:29:00 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it.
(all else being equal)
The observation that proves a phone w/o the aux jack is an inferior phone
to one with it is there is *nothing* a phone w/o the jack can do that a
phone with it can't do.
If you want to disagree with that infallible logic, then tell me:
Q: What can a phone w/o the aux jack do that a phone with it can't do?
A: ?
HINT: Nothing.
That answer proves there is no advantage whatsoever to the aux removal.
It's a (brilliant) marketing trick.
It's perhaps said to be even "courageous" for an OEM to remove basic functionality & expect people to still buy a clearly substandard phone.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:26:58 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
You are arguing, without clearly saying so, that it is cheaper to buy a
phone with smaller internal storage, and compensate by inserting a large
memory card (which is cheaper). And treating as stupid the people that
do not agree with your hidden argument.
My argument, as are all my arguments, is based on knowledge & logic.
The knowledge that Apple/Google are not stupid. They're actually brilliant. And knowledge that 64GB is plenty of internal storage for a thousand apps.
Think about this next question, Carlos:
Q: Why would anyone (pay a lot) for more than 64GB of internal storage?
A: You tell me.
HINT: I know the answer. As I said, Google/Apple marketing are not stupid.
Maybe.
But, for example, when I am offered the same model of a phone in several
versions, the one with more internal storage also has more internal ram,
and a few other things.
I will agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible argument, where, if you are choosing a phone with double the RAM, that's a *different* issue.
A completely different issue.
In fact, I'm on record, for years, explaining to the Apple owners that only until AI proved me right, Apple has historically put the cheapest RAM possible in the iPhone (which is part of Apple's strategy of putting the cheapest components possible, such as the battery, into the iPhone).
Hence I will agree with you that *other factors* go into determining what phone you purchase, where my logically defensible argument is only that...
a. A phone without sd is always inferior to a phone with sd (in many ways)
b. But only if we're comparing two essentially equivalent phones otherwise
As other have said, the internal storage is way faster than external
memory cards, and have a much lower failure rate.
I will *never* disagree with a logically defensible argument.
Only fools do that. That's why they're fools.
My response is that I have nothing against internal storage *except* that
it doesn't do what portable storage does, and, worse, internal storage
(while faster & more reliable) certainly costs a *lot* more than equivalent portable storage costs.
So internal storage is good... but...
a. It costs an arm & a leg (compared to portable storage), and,
b. It can't do what portable storage does
For example, internal storage can't grow over time.
Portable storage can.
Internal storage can't be popped into a handful of phones to populate them. And it can't be transferred to a new phone like portable storage can.
Not without the clusterfuck of the cloud or cables or thumb drives.
And the card slot
means that it is more difficult, perhaps impossible, to waterproof the
phone.
While that sounds logically defensible...
As badgolferman noted, I don't think there is evidence of those two things. a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings
Hmmm... if that's the case, maybe the removal was just a marketing trick?
You may say that you do not mind waterproofness, but that's your
opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Me, I have lost
a phone to water, so to me it is important.
I won't say that.
What I will say is nobody has shown any evidence of your claim.
See above.
a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings
Given phones without portable storage are clearly substandard to phones
that have it, and, while the theoretical advantages of IP ratings and cost make sense, they don't seem to be passed on to the consumer, the question
is why did Google/Apple remove the basic functionality of portable storage.
HINT: I know why. Do you?
If Apple supposedly has no innovation, what does that imply for all the
lazy copy-cat Android makers??
My argument, as are all my arguments, is based on knowledge & logic.
Think about this next question, Carlos:
Q: Why would anyone (pay a lot) for more than 64GB of internal
storage?
A: You tell me.
HINT: I know the answer. As I said, Google/Apple marketing are not stupid.
I will agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible argument, where,
if you are choosing a phone with double the RAM, that's a *different*
issue.
A completely different issue.
a. A phone without sd is always inferior to a phone with sd
(in many ways)
b. But only if we're comparing two essentially equivalent
phones otherwise
As other have said, the internal storage is way faster than
external memory cards, and have a much lower failure rate.
I will *never* disagree with a logically defensible argument.
Only fools do that. That's why they're fools.
My response is that I have nothing against internal storage
*except* that it doesn't do what portable storage does,
and, worse, internal storage (while faster & more reliable)
certainly costs a *lot* more than equivalent portable storage costs.
So internal storage is good... but...
a. It costs an arm & a leg (compared to portable storage), and,
b. It can't do what portable storage d
For example, internal storage can't grow over time.
Portable storage can.
Internal storage can't be popped into a handful of phones to
populate them. And it can't be transferred to a new phone like
portable storage can.
And the card slot means that it is more difficult, perhaps
impossible, to waterproof the phone.
While that sounds logically defensible...
As badgolferman noted, I don't think there is evidence of
those two things.
a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better
IP ratings
Hmmm... if that's the case, maybe the removal was just a
marketing trick?
You may say that you do not mind waterproofness, but that's
your opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
Me, I have lost a phone to water, so to me it is important.
I won't say that.
What I will say is nobody has shown any evidence of your claim.
Given phones without portable storage are clearly substandard
to phones that have it, and, while the theoretical advantages
of IP ratings and cost make sense, they don't seem to be passed
on to the consumer, the question is why did Google/Apple remove
the basic functionality of portable storage.
HINT: I know why. Do you?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:29:00 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Apple removes functionality (such as the aux jack) and then tells people >>> it's good for them - when - in reality - it's a strategy of removing basic >>> functionality so that the customer has to scramble to purchase it back.
No, Apple never told people, that it is "good for them" not to have an
aux jack. They just said, that there are better alternatives, like
Bluetooth, since many people don't like to use cables anyway.
And even Fairphone removed the aux jack with the Fairphone 4 - and
Fairphone is the company, which offers phones easy to repair and
sustainable. So to say Fairphone is just following apple, because they
are greedy and want to sell their cloud service is a bit far fetched.
Fairphone even offers sustainable Bluetooth headsets where you can
replace the batteries:
<https://shop.fairphone.com/fairbuds-xl>
I'll agree with any logically sensible argument, but I will also disagree with arguments that defy logic. I'm no fool. I understand your argument.
I agree OEMs are brilliant in their strategy of removing basic
functionality so that the customer is forced to buy (some of it) back.
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it.
The observation that proves a phone w/o the aux jack is an inferior phone
to one with it is there is *nothing* a phone w/o the jack can do that a
phone with it can't do.
If you want to disagree with that infallible logic, then tell me:
Q: What can a phone w/o the aux jack do that a phone with it can't do?
A: ?
HINT: Nothing.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:29:05 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
It's cheaper for the manufacturers.
And yes, this is the ONE AND ONLY(!!!) advantage!
While it's cheaper for the manufacturers, that's NOT why they do it.
Wrong, that is the reason.
Then why aren't those substandard Pixels & iPhones cheaper?
Then why aren't those substandard Pixels & iPhones cheaper?
If you want to disagree with that infallible logic, then tell me:
Q: What can a phone w/o the aux jack do that a phone with it can't do?
A: ?
HINT: Nothing.
Marion, 2025-06-18 08:03:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:29:00 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Apple removes functionality (such as the aux jack) and then tells people >>>> it's good for them - when - in reality - it's a strategy of removing basic >>>> functionality so that the customer has to scramble to purchase it back. >>>No, Apple never told people, that it is "good for them" not to have an
aux jack. They just said, that there are better alternatives, like
Bluetooth, since many people don't like to use cables anyway.
And even Fairphone removed the aux jack with the Fairphone 4 - and
Fairphone is the company, which offers phones easy to repair and
sustainable. So to say Fairphone is just following apple, because they
are greedy and want to sell their cloud service is a bit far fetched.
Fairphone even offers sustainable Bluetooth headsets where you can
replace the batteries:
<https://shop.fairphone.com/fairbuds-xl>
I'll agree with any logically sensible argument, but I will also disagree
with arguments that defy logic. I'm no fool. I understand your argument.
I agree OEMs are brilliant in their strategy of removing basic
functionality so that the customer is forced to buy (some of it) back.
If customers don't use wired headsets anyway, they don't have to buy
anything to get something back.
If you want to disagree with that infallible logic, then tell me:
Q: What can a phone w/o the aux jack do that a phone with it can't do?
A: ?
HINT: Nothing.
Ignoring the HINT:
It has more room for a bigger internal battery.
The fingerprint sensor was also a gimmick.
If we don't live in the slums, why would we need it?
Is there zero burglary in your neighbourhood?
Do you ever leave your house?
Think about this next question, Carlos:
Q: Why would anyone (pay a lot) for more than 64GB of internal storage?
A: You tell me.
I would not even consider a phone with only 64 GB.
HINT: I know the answer. As I said, Google/Apple marketing are not stupid.
I don't care what they do. I don't buy my phones from them.
So internal storage is good... but...
a. It costs an arm & a leg (compared to portable storage), and,
b. It can't do what portable storage does
What, exactly? It doesn't do any thing I need.
Move over the card somewhere else? I do not need it.
And I can prove this: My phone does have a card slot and I don't use it.
For example, internal storage can't grow over time.
Portable storage can.
Ok, there is that.
But I don't need it, either.
Internal storage can't be popped into a handful of phones to populate them. >> And it can't be transferred to a new phone like portable storage can.
I don't need that.
Not without the clusterfuck of the cloud or cables or thumb drives.
I only need to copy over the photos ONCE in the life of the new phone.
It is the same setup I have to use to migrate everything else, including
the apps.
While that sounds logically defensible...
As badgolferman noted, I don't think there is evidence of those two things. >> a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings
Hmmm... if that's the case, maybe the removal was just a marketing trick?
Nope.
What I will say is nobody has shown any evidence of your claim.
See above.
a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings
Evidence of this claim of yours? :-)
A slot for a card is a hole, and it has to be waterproofed. That's evident.
Given phones without portable storage are clearly substandard to phones
This is your opinion, not a fact.
that have it, and, while the theoretical advantages of IP ratings and cost >> make sense, they don't seem to be passed on to the consumer, the question
is why did Google/Apple remove the basic functionality of portable storage. >>
HINT: I know why. Do you?
Google has published their ideas for over a decade. Namely, they
consider external memory card slow and unsafe. And both things are true.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:26:23 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :
The fingerprint sensor was also a gimmick.
If we don't live in the slums, why would we need it?
Is there zero burglary in your neighbourhood?
Do you ever leave your house?
Hi Andy (this is the kinder, gentler me, but still logical & sensible),
You don't know where I live, but let's just say it's one of the most expensive gated neighborhoods in the United States, so, no, there aren't burglaries. But that's besides the point because I do go into town.
I completely understand why you say what you just said because most people would say what you just said; but most people don't think sensibly on this.
And I was mostly disparaging "FaceID" because it's a marketing gimmick;
just as fingerprints are a marketing gimmick (since a PIN is just fine).
But you know I don't even have a PIN on my phone, where the *benefit* to me is it's a lot easier for me and my wife & kids to use my phone at home.
But you're asking about what happens when I leave the house, right?
Since I need to be kind and gentle & yet logically sensible, maybe this question will get the point across why I think that doesn't increase risk.
You know my phone has no biometrics on it (not even a PIN); but of course I could put a PIN on that phone, right?
But I don't even have a PIN.
That's because I don't fear my wife and my kids nor my friends.
But, you also know that I "leave the house" and go into town.
So, you're inferring, I assume, that my phone is lost or stolen.
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone.
And, until I cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
If you want to disagree with that infallible logic, then tell me:
Q: What can a phone w/o the aux jack do that a phone with it can't do?
A: ?
It has more room for a bigger internal battery.
this is your opinion, not a fact. It depends on what are the
priorities of the owner.
(my phone does have a jack)
It's cheaper for the manufacturers.
And yes, this is the ONE AND ONLY(!!!) advantage!
While it's cheaper for the manufacturers, that's NOT why they do it.
Wrong, that is the reason.
Then why aren't those substandard Pixels & iPhones cheaper?
Because the idea is, that the *production* is cheaper, so the
manufacturer makes more money.
You've asked the that several times. As you have been told several times, there are several other factors that make the price. You have refused to respond/discuss every time.
You've asked the that several times. As you have been told several times,
there are several other factors that make the price. You have refused to
respond/discuss every time.
Let's say all trucks came with a hitch as the "industry standard basic hardware" and then Apple comes out with a truck without the possibility of the hitch, saying it was "courageous" for Apple to remove that hitch.
Cost:
While the individual components are indeed cheap, the cost
savings rarely seem to be reflected in a lower retail price
for the consumer.
On 18. Jun 2025 at 23:33:05 CEST, "Arno Welzel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
If you want to disagree with that infallible logic, then tell me:
Q: What can a phone w/o the aux jack do that a phone with it can't do?
A: ?
HINT: Nothing.
Ignoring the HINT:
It has more room for a bigger internal battery.
On 2025-06-18 23:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
Marion, 2025-06-18 08:03:[...]>>> I agree OEMs are brilliant in their strategy of removing basic
functionality so that the customer is forced to buy (some of it) back.
If customers don't use wired headsets anyway, they don't have to buy
anything to get something back.
Today I was walking behind someone using a wired headset :-P
And it was a very young person.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 23:44:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
It's cheaper for the manufacturers.
And yes, this is the ONE AND ONLY(!!!) advantage!
While it's cheaper for the manufacturers, that's NOT why they do it.
Wrong, that is the reason.
Then why aren't those substandard Pixels & iPhones cheaper?
Because the idea is, that the *production* is cheaper, so the
manufacturer makes more money.
Bingo.
The only reason for removing it was for Apple/Google to make $$$ money.
The only reason for removing it was for Apple/Google to make $$$ money.
Finally you get it!
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be
inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
WHY?
I don't see the logic.
I don't need a memory card in years. I have not felt the need. And no, I don't pay anybody.
(and my phone does have the slot)
And please remember to be polite and accept gracefully other people
opinions.
The fact is the removal of essential, industry-standard features like the
3.5 mm auxiliary jack and SD card slot from modern devices is often
justified by manufacturers as a step towards innovation or improved
design.
However, an intelligent examination reveals a far more cynical motive.
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
It is not illogical. I still have more than 30 GB free memory in my
phone. I don't need more. This is not illogical.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be
inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
So what? I don't the superior phone, no matter how you try to convince me.
If customers don't use wired headsets anyway, they don't have to buy
anything to get something back.
Today I was walking behind someone using a wired headset :-P
And it was a very young person.
So what? I did not say, that *nobody* is using wired headsets. And
headsets with USB-C connector (so you don't even need an adapter) exist
and they are not every very expensive. And if you prefer high quality
sound, a good USB-C-DAC with a good pair of headphones is the better
choice anyway.
Removing basic industry-standard hardware functionality isn't about adding >> capability; it's about removing choice and monetizing basic features.
This is not the official reason according to Apple. Are you sure Alan,
Lorenz and Jolly Roger will approve of your conclusion?
Does that mean you are coming to your senses
It's like two pickups, one with a tow hitch, and one without.
a phone without the jack can replace some of the missing
functionality is true.
A pickup without the tow hitch can replace the missing functionality
too.
The fact is a pickup without the tow hitch has to find 'another way'
(perhaps even a better 'another way') to replace the lost functionality.
Which is true.
The only logically meaningful comparison is if
the truck without the tow hitch could do something which
the truck without the tow hitch can't do.
Which is the point, after all.
Marion,
a phone without the jack can replace some of the missing
functionality is true.
(1)
A pickup without the tow hitch can replace the missing functionality
too.
(2)
The fact is a pickup without the tow hitch has to find 'another way'
(perhaps even a better 'another way') to replace the lost functionality.
Which is true.
Nope, its false (3)
(1,2,3) Something something premisse.
The only logically meaningful comparison is if
the truck without the tow hitch could do something which
the truck without the tow hitch can't do.
A "logically meaningful comparison" you say ? Really ? I only see nonsense.
Which is the point, after all.
It was ? Since when ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 16:04:39 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
If customers don't use wired headsets anyway, they don't have to buy
anything to get something back.
Today I was walking behind someone using a wired headset :-P
And it was a very young person.
So what? I did not say, that *nobody* is using wired headsets. And
headsets with USB-C connector (so you don't even need an adapter) exist
and they are not every very expensive. And if you prefer high quality
sound, a good USB-C-DAC with a good pair of headphones is the better
choice anyway.
Hi Arno,
I wonder if you realize you're proving the point that phones without the
aux jack are vastly inferior (in functionality) to phones with the jack?
Depending on the design of the "truck" and "tow hitch" (i.e. does the "tow hitch" stick out beyond the rear of the truck):
- one without a "tow hitch" can back up closer to a wall / car
behind it than one with a "tow hitch".
- one without a "tow hitch" can't hurt people walking behind
it, while one with a "tow hitch" can cause people to bang
their shins on it.
Almost any comparison (as well as survey, poll, and study) can be skewed
to "prove" whatever someone wants it to "prove". In the end such
comparisons are rather pointless. :-)
In terms of the mobile phone and audio jack, most people simply either
never used it or were tired of trying to untangle the wires on the
earphones, so it was removed form devices (first by Apple and then copy-catted by most other makers).
There were of course other reasons to remove the audio jack. One being the silliness to continually make mobile phones (and tablets)
ever thinner, not that anyone every really complained about modern
cellphones being too thick.
Your Name,
Depending on the design of the "truck" and "tow hitch" (i.e. does the
"tow hitch" stick out beyond the rear of the truck):
- one without a "tow hitch" can back up closer to a wall / car
behind it than one with a "tow hitch".
- one without a "tow hitch" can't hurt people walking behind
it, while one with a "tow hitch" can cause people to bang
their shins on it.
The OP has already proven himself to be blind and deaf for any counter argument.
Almost any comparison (as well as survey, poll, and study) can be
skewed to "prove" whatever someone wants it to "prove". In the end such
comparisons are rather pointless. :-)
The OP hasn't figured out how to do that yet, his methods are still
rather crude.
In terms of the mobile phone and audio jack, most people simply either
never used it or were tired of trying to untangle the wires on the
earphones, so it was removed form devices (first by Apple and then
copy-catted by most other makers).
I'm not sure if the above is what actually happened cause-and-effect
wise, but its possible.
There were of course other reasons to remove the audio jack. One being
the silliness to continually make mobile phones (and tablets)
ever thinner, not that anyone every really complained about modern
cellphones being too thick.
Similar considerations have been posted a few times now (including by
me), but the OP refuses to respond to/discuss any of it. He just
*knows* its because "they" (all of the phone makers) are out to gouge
him, and nobody can tell him otherwise.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 16:16:50 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The only reason for removing it was for Apple/Google to make $$$ money.
Finally you get it!
Bingo!
Removing basic industry-standard hardware functionality isn't about adding capability; it's about removing choice and monetizing basic features.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 16:04:39 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
If customers don't use wired headsets anyway, they don't have to buy
anything to get something back.
Today I was walking behind someone using a wired headset :-P
And it was a very young person.
So what? I did not say, that *nobody* is using wired headsets. And
headsets with USB-C connector (so you don't even need an adapter) exist
and they are not every very expensive. And if you prefer high quality
sound, a good USB-C-DAC with a good pair of headphones is the better
choice anyway.
Hi Arno,
I wonder if you realize you're proving the point that phones without the
aux jack are vastly inferior (in functionality) to phones with the jack?
So you're point is logically meaningless.
Both phones can use USB-DAC's so pointing it out is logically meaningless. But only one phone can use a wired headphone.
Hence, you proved the point for us.
A phone without this basic hardware is vastly inferior to one with it.
It's the only logical conclusion that is possible to make.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 15:21:08 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
Removing basic industry-standard hardware functionality isn't about adding >>> capability; it's about removing choice and monetizing basic features.
This is not the official reason according to Apple. Are you sure Alan,
Lorenz and Jolly Roger will approve of your conclusion?
I agree with you that I must have understood the removal of basic hardware functionality wrong since Apple told us it's a 'courageous' innovation.
Just as Apple told us they locked us into the barbed-wire ringed walled prison garden "for our safety", even as there is no safety to be found.
Likewise when Apple told us it's "green" to have to buy your own charger.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:01 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
It is not illogical. I still have more than 30 GB free memory in my
phone. I don't need more. This is not illogical.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be >>> inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
So what? I don't the superior phone, no matter how you try to convince me.
Hi Arno (I'm following Carlos' advice to be extremely patient & kind)
The discussion about the functionality of the basic industry standard SD
card slot isn't to convince you that you need a "superior" phone or that
your current expensive phone isn't perfectly adequate for your needs.
Instead, I'm discussing with you the inherent design capability of the
device itself. And how you were forced to make decisions that you didn't
even realize the OEM forced you into making. Marketing is brilliant.
In some ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need those functions.
They remove things from a device without lowering the price, and then
charge extra to get those same functions back again.
No longer including a charger is another recent example.
The original iMac dropped the floppy disk drive and had no real
replacement since USB thumb drives being too expensive at the time. You
had to buy an external floppy disk drive (once they were available!) to be able to easily and cheaply transfer files between computers.
Same happens in many other industries too.
It's called "the price of progress". :-(
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:26:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Think about this next question, Carlos:
Q: Why would anyone (pay a lot) for more than 64GB of internal storage?
A: You tell me.
I would not even consider a phone with only 64 GB.
Hi Carlos (from a kinder, gentler me, but still the logically sensible me)
May I ask when you say you wouldn't consider a 64GB phone if that phone had an sd slot or not as it makes an astoundingly huge difference which it is.
HINT: I know the answer. As I said, Google/Apple marketing are not stupid. >>I don't care what they do. I don't buy my phones from them.
Last we checked, most Android phones (from all carriers) had sd slots for
the obvious reason that it's impossible to replace what sd cards do any
other way, but that means a lot of Android phones do not have sd slots.
It's not just Apple or Google (where none of their phones have basic functionality) but it's also Samsung for their high-end smartphones.
Ever wonder why Samsung puts slots in the lower end but not the high end?
I have.
And I think I know why.
(If I haven't mentioned it yet, some marketing gimmicks are brilliant.)
So internal storage is good... but...
a. It costs an arm & a leg (compared to portable storage), and,
b. It can't do what portable storage does
What, exactly? It doesn't do any thing I need.
Move over the card somewhere else? I do not need it.
And I can prove this: My phone does have a card slot and I don't use it.
I've explained, in gory detail, what an sdcard does that is impossible to replace, but if you don't need any of what it does, then you don't need it.
But wait.... you did need it!
You said you wouldn't buy a phone with only 64GB of storage.
You wouldn't have said that if it had an sd slot.
So you *did* need it.
You simply replaced *some* of what it did with a phone with more storage.
But it's *impossible* to replace what portable storage does with permanent storage. You can work around some of the issues - but not all of them.
For example, internal storage can't grow over time.
Portable storage can.
Ok, there is that.
But I don't need it, either.
I'm glad you're being reasonable in that you understood that permanent storage costs an arm and a leg at yesterday's inflated prices, because you have to plan ahead for five years of use of that phone when you buy a phone that does not have an sd slot. You get no second chances.
One of the many beauties of portable storage that is *impossible* to fully replace with permanent storage is that it can not only grow over time, but
as it grows, you get to buy bigger & faster sdcards at today's cheaper prices.
Essentially, without sd slots, you have to "future proof" a phone at
inflated yesterday's prices for all the storage you think you might need in the next five years - but with sd slots - you can add cheaper portable storage at prices that just get cheaper as you need more & more storage.
If you bought a phone that had more than 64GB of storage, you wasted a lot
of money as a result. So you *did* need it. You just might not realize it.
Internal storage can't be popped into a handful of phones to populate them. >>> And it can't be transferred to a new phone like portable storage can.
I don't need that.
I agree with you that it's reasonable to say that most people won't need to pop out an sd card to pop it into another phone, or even into a computer.
Most people transfer data over USB or Wi-Fi so while this capability is impossible to replicate fully, it can be partially replicated with cables.
Not without the clusterfuck of the cloud or cables or thumb drives.
I only need to copy over the photos ONCE in the life of the new phone.
It is the same setup I have to use to migrate everything else, including
the apps.
I'm probably only one out a few million people who populate a phone fully
and completely without ever using the Internet (or the cloud) to do it, so I'm well aware that, nowadays, re-populating a phone is pretty easy to do.
Bear in mind I had two Samsung Galaxy A32-5G's break on me, which were replaced under warranty, where I just popped the old sdcard out and popped
it into the new phone and I didn't have to copy any of the OSMAnd data.
In your use model, how would you copy over all the OSMAnd data to a replacement phone? And how would you copy over all your APKs to the replacement phone (especially if many aren't from the Google Play repo)?
And how would you copy over your homescreen from the old phone to the new phone so that every folder and app is exactly in the same place?
I'm not saying you can't do that - but I am asking HOW you do that.
While that sounds logically defensible...Nope.
As badgolferman noted, I don't think there is evidence of those two things. >>> a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings
Hmmm... if that's the case, maybe the removal was just a marketing trick? >>
Well, let's just agree to disagree because we've had entire threads on this and nobody has found any evidence that the manufacturers are passing to the consumer the cost benefit to them of removing the basic functionality of either the sd slot or the aux jack (or the charging block for that matter).
What I will say is nobody has shown any evidence of your claim.
See above.
a. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to be cheaper
b. Phones w/o portable storage don't seem to have better IP ratings
Evidence of this claim of yours? :-)
A slot for a card is a hole, and it has to be waterproofed. That's evident.
Same thing with the IP ratings, where there is no overall difference that anyone can find between IP ratings of phones with basic functionality
intact versus the phones where marketing removed the basic functionality.
Given phones without portable storage are clearly substandard to phones
This is your opinion, not a fact.
Ah, Chris, it *is* a fact.
The fact you think it's not a fact, is disconcerting to me.
I'm trying to be nice when I say this, because it's clearly a fact.
I don't know if you ever took logic in college, but I did.
It's impossible for you to claim it's not a fact.
Because it is.
How do I get that concept into your head in a nice way?
Let me try this approach - to get the idea into your head nicely.
Take two cars.
They're exactly the same except for a single thing.
One of the cars has basic industry-standard functionality removed.
The other car does not have that basic standard functionality removed.
Q: Which car has less functionality?
A: ?
that have it, and, while the theoretical advantages of IP ratings and cost >>> make sense, they don't seem to be passed on to the consumer, the question >>> is why did Google/Apple remove the basic functionality of portable storage. >>>
HINT: I know why. Do you?
Google has published their ideas for over a decade. Namely, they
consider external memory card slow and unsafe. And both things are true.
Heh heh heh... what marketing says is the reason they removed basic
industry standard functionality (i.e., it's "courageous") is never going to be the real reason why they removed it.
Did you ever take marketing in college?
I did.
It's all about fleecing the customer.
And making the customer believe that it's good for them.
Marketing is all about eking out more dollars than you'd get without it. Which is why Apple/Google/Samsung spend, oh, I don't know, billions on it.
If Marketing wasn't so successful, Coca Cola, Marlboro & Apple would be
tiny companies that simply made soda, cigarettes & iPhones.
MARKETING is brilliant.
My advice to you is to never think it's not.
Essentially, if Marketing says they removed basic functionality for reason
X, you can rest assured they did NOT remove that functionality for that reason.
They'll never tell you why.
But where they earn their profits tell you why.
The only reason they removed the basic industry standard sd slot in some phones is to make the customer scramble to find a way to buy it back.
And now leave use alone.
me ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need those
functions. They remove things from a device without lowering the price,
and then charge extra to get those same functions back again. No longer including a charger is another recent example.
It's not just mobile phones either. The original iMac dropped the
floppy disk drive and had no real replacement since USB thumb drives
being too expensive at the time. You had to buy an external floppy disk
drive (once they were available!) to be able to easily and cheaply
transfer files between computers.
Nope. Vastly inferior? Nope. It is simply a design choice. You like it
or not. It can be important to you or not. You make a list of things
that you absolutely need in a phone, another of things you would like,
and then make your choice of phone amongst those on the market.
There are no absolutes; what to you maybe very important to another
person is pointless.
I am happy with the hardware I have.
It's interesting how you respond to a logically sensible
discussion.
Your Name,
In some ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need those
functions.
Are they ? What do you think it costs to manufacture small batches of
a certain product ? And than there is the risk involved in not
getting all of them sold. And its not only the manufacturer who runs
that risk, but also all the resell points, upto-and-including the
store, in between.
As for gouging, that only works when a single manufacturer is involved
- or you must believe that all the manufacturers all over the world are colluding.
They remove things from a device without lowering the price, and then
charge extra to get those same functions back again.
You know as well as I do that they do not just remove features while
leaving the rest of the phone the same. As you mentioned it yourself,
the choice to remove the the audio jack could easily be from the manufacturers wish to make the phone even thinner than the last one.
No longer including a charger is another recent example.
Why include a charger when the phone has gotten an universal plug and
thus (supposedly) can be charged by any old charger you've got laying
around ? It can be argued that most of chargers delivered with a new
phone would just turn into landfill.
Yes, it would have been nice to see that reflected in the price of a
new phone, but (big) companies are definitily not there to let their customers profit from any windfall they might come across. Besides,
with a mid-range phone costing $500,- or more and a charger about $15,-
we are talking about 3%. Thats not really going to break the bank.
The original iMac dropped the floppy disk drive and had no real
replacement since USB thumb drives being too expensive at the time. You
had to buy an external floppy disk drive (once they were available!) to
be able to easily and cheaply transfer files between computers.
And with that you have deliverd a nice example why removing
functionality is two-sided sword : They may grab a bit more cash, but
they are losing control over what they regard as /their/ device.
Something similar happened to the Commodore 64 : they started to sell
huge external diskdrives (called "breadboxes" by the users),
and other companies jumped at the chance and created much nicer
diskdrives about a quarter (and even less) as big. (I've still got both
in my closet).
Same happens in many other industries too.
It's called "the price of progress". :-(
You mean "the price of progress" which means that you are *willingly* carrying a device wich is a super-version of those ankle-bracelets some convicts are forced to wear ? :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On 2025-06-22 06:51:09 +0000, R.Wieser said:
Your Name,
Depending on the design of the "truck" and "tow hitch" (i.e.
does the "tow hitch" stick out beyond the rear of the truck):
- one without a "tow hitch" can back up closer to a wall / car
behind it than one with a "tow hitch".
- one without a "tow hitch" can't hurt people walking behind it,
while one with a "tow hitch" can cause people to bang their
shins on it.
The OP has already proven himself to be blind and deaf for any
counter argument.
Almost any comparison (as well as survey, poll, and study) can
be skewed to "prove" whatever someone wants it to "prove". In
the end such comparisons are rather pointless. :-)
The OP hasn't figured out how to do that yet, his methods are
still rather crude.
In terms of the mobile phone and audio jack, most people simply
either never used it or were tired of trying to untangle the
wires on the earphones, so it was removed form devices (first by
Apple and then copy-catted by most other makers).
I'm not sure if the above is what actually happened cause-and-
effect wise, but its possible.
There were of course other reasons to remove the audio jack.
One being the silliness to continually make mobile phones (and
tablets) ever thinner, not that anyone every really complained
about modern cellphones being too thick.
Similar considerations have been posted a few times now (including
by me), but the OP refuses to respond to/discuss any of it. He
just *knows* its because "they" (all of the phone makers) are out
to gouge him, and nobody can tell him otherwise.
Regards, Rudy Wieser
In some ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need
those functions. They remove things from a device without lowering
the price, and then charge extra to get those same functions back
again. No longer including a charger is another recent example.
It's not just mobile phones either. The original iMac dropped the
floppy disk drive and had no real replacement since USB thumb drives
being too expensive at the time. You had to buy an external floppy
disk drive (once they were available!) to be able to easily and
cheaply transfer files between computers.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 00:46:53 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Nope. Vastly inferior? Nope. It is simply a design choice. You like it
or not. It can be important to you or not. You make a list of things
that you absolutely need in a phone, another of things you would like,
and then make your choice of phone amongst those on the market.
There are no absolutes; what to you maybe very important to another
person is pointless.
Hi Carlos, (a kinder gentler me, but still always logical & sensible)
You make your own choices. As do I. As does everyone else.
The only thing I ask of people is to "think" of why they made that choice.
I understand that your opinion is that a phone that is designed to limit
your options is just a "design choice" and I won't disagree with that.
If a person chooses the Samsung ecosystem, they have that choice.
The high-end (read, "expensive") phones have "design choices" of removal of industry standard basic hardware, which are designed to limit your options, but, a purchaser of a $1K phone can easily purchase back the lost functionality (some of it, of course, as it's impossible to get all back).
a. charger (in the box)
b. aux jack (on the device)
c. sd slot (in the device)
Yet, the low-end (read, "less expensive") phones still have the basic hardware "design choices" of the aux jack, sd slot and huge batteries.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:49:13 +1200, Your Name wrote :
me ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need those
functions. They remove things from a device without lowering the price,
and then charge extra to get those same functions back again. No longer
including a charger is another recent example.
I will agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible statement, even if that person has made illogical statements in the past, where not only did Apple first remove the charger in the box, but remember what Apple said.
a. Apple said you already had chargers, and,
b. Apple said it was green to remove the charger.
However, two facts remain that put the lie to Apple's words:
A. You didn't have 20W (or higher) PD chargers at that time, and,
B. You had to buy a charger from somewhere - which isn't green.
People need to be intelligent to see through the lies.
It's not just mobile phones either. The original iMac dropped the
floppy disk drive and had no real replacement since USB thumb drives
being too expensive at the time. You had to buy an external floppy disk
drive (once they were available!) to be able to easily and cheaply
transfer files between computers.
Windows dropped some types of external drives, but not before they were no longer relevant. Apple drops perfectly good working basic hardware.
An example is the industry standard sd slot is in most Android phones today and the industry-standard aux jack is also in most phones last we checked.
On 2025-06-21 18:33:11 +0000, R.Wieser said:
Marion,
a phone without the jack can replace some of the missing
functionality is true.
(1)
A pickup without the tow hitch can replace the missing functionality
too.
(2)
The fact is a pickup without the tow hitch has to find 'another way'
(perhaps even a better 'another way') to replace the lost functionality. >>>
Which is true.
Nope, its false (3)
(1,2,3) Something something premisse.
The only logically meaningful comparison is if
the truck without the tow hitch could do something which
the truck without the tow hitch can't do.
A "logically meaningful comparison" you say ? Really ? I only see
nonsense.
Depending on the design of the "truck" and "tow hitch" (i.e. does the
"tow hitch" stick out beyond the rear of the truck):
- one without a "tow hitch" can back up closer to a wall / car
behind it than one with a "tow hitch".
- one without a "tow hitch" can't hurt people walking behind
it, while one with a "tow hitch" can cause people to bang
their shins on it.
Almost any comparison (as well as survey, poll, and study) can be skewed
to "prove" whatever someone wants it to "prove". In the end such
comparisons are rather pointless. :-)
In terms of the mobile phone and audio jack, most people simply either
never used it or were tired of trying to untangle the wires on the
earphones, so it was removed form devices (first by Apple and then copy- catted by most other makers). BUT many young people are reportedly
returning to using wired earphones due to reasons like not having to be separately recharged and being cheaper to buy, so the audio jack *might* eventually make a return too, if "enough" people wanted it.
There were of course other reasons to remove the audio jack. One being
the silliness to continually make mobile phones (and tablets) ever
thinner, not that anyone every really complained about modern cellphones being too thick.
Marion,I do wonder from time to time how he'd respond to a slap across the face.
It's interesting how you respond to a logically sensible
discussion.
Its interresting how you still consider your own posts as "logically sensible" nonwithstanding quite a few people indicating otherwise. Or that you consider your standard refusal to respond to anyone disagreeing with you a "discussion".
Heck, in just a few posts "Your Name" and I have discussed - exchanged information in good faith - more than you have in this whole thread with all people in it.
Marion <[email protected]> wrote:
The fact is the removal of essential, industry-standard features like the
3.5 mm auxiliary jack and SD card slot from modern devices is often
justified by manufacturers as a step towards innovation or improved design. >>
However, an intelligent examination reveals a far more cynical motive.
The deliberate creation of new revenue streams and increased dependency on >> proprietary ecosystems, always at the expense of user functionality and
convenience.
Removing basic industry-standard hardware functionality isn't about adding >> capability; it's about removing choice and monetizing basic features.
This is not the official reason according to Apple. Are you sure Alan,
Lorenz and Jolly Roger will approve of your conclusion?
Marion, 2025-06-21 18:21:I didn't buy a charger from Apple when I bought my phone.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 15:21:08 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
Removing basic industry-standard hardware functionality isn't about adding >>>> capability; it's about removing choice and monetizing basic features.
This is not the official reason according to Apple. Are you sure Alan,
Lorenz and Jolly Roger will approve of your conclusion?
I agree with you that I must have understood the removal of basic hardware >> functionality wrong since Apple told us it's a 'courageous' innovation.
Just as Apple told us they locked us into the barbed-wire ringed walled
prison garden "for our safety", even as there is no safety to be found.
Likewise when Apple told us it's "green" to have to buy your own charger.
Wrong - it is "green" when do *not* have to use a *second* charger you
got with a new phone but can continue to use the one you already have.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:36:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be >>> inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
WHY?
I don't see the logic.
I don't need a memory card in years. I have not felt the need. And no, I
don't pay anybody.
(and my phone does have the slot)
And please remember to be polite and accept gracefully other people
opinions.
Hi Carlos,
Your phone is a capable phone because it has the basic industry standard hardware that allows you to do things that people without it can't do.
Hence, it's completely valid that you haven't felt the need for an SD card slot in years, especially since your current phone already has one. That means your phone offers you the choice to use it or not, which is a key
part of its inherent capability.
When I say a phone with an SD card slot is "always going to be superior in capability" to one without it, I'm talking about the potential for functionality – even if that potential isn't utilized by every user.
It's like a pickup having a tow hitch where you might never tow anything,
but the ability is always there, making it more capable than an identical pickup without that toe hitch.
You might not do *any* of that stuff - but I do it all the time. Every day. Every minute of every single day - I'm using that sd card in that sd slot.
Given you don't do the stuff I do, please allow me to ask you questions.
But allow me to ask you a few related questions, please?
a. At purchase time, did you pay for more than for 64GB internal storage?
b. When you migrated to a new phone, were you forced to use the Internet?
c. Did you ever wish you could have double, triple, quadruple the storage?
d. Do you put your sensitive personal data (e.g., images) on the "cloud"?
e. Do you ever hot swap from one phone to another huge media files?
You may do none of that functionality, and then it's like you having a tow hitch on your pickup truck that you never used; but you can use it if you need to, whereas if you can't install that toe hitch, you simply can't.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:20:58 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
And now leave use alone.
It's interesting how you respond to a logically sensible discussion.
The high-end (read, "expensive") phones have "design choices" of removal of industry standard basic hardware, which are designed to limit your options, but, a purchaser of a $1K phone can easily purchase back the lost functionality (some of it, of course, as it's impossible to get all back).
a. charger (in the box)
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:23:20 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
I am happy with the hardware I have.
I never disagree with an argument that is logical and sensible, even if
it's as simple as you just stated your argument to be.
You're fine with a phone that costs more and has less functionality.
Because, as you've said many times, you can buy some of it back.
It's fine that you're happy with a phone lacking basic functionality.
The only thing I care about is that you UNDERSTAND what happened.
You don't care that you were bamboozled by MARKETING out of your money.
And that's OK.
A clever MARKETING ruse forced you to pay likely twice as much for less.
And you're perfectly happy with that.
...Are they ? What do you think it costs to manufacture small batches of a
certain product ?
Depend on the shop's agreement with the manufacturer.
In the case of Apple, Samsung, and others, some of the shops are owned by
the manufacturer themselves.
As for gouging, that only works when a single manufacturer is involved -are colluding.
or you must believe that all the manufacturers all over the world
Not colluding as such, but once Apple does something, all the others
quickly follow.
Samsung even has a habit of making fun of Apple for do it, only then for Samsung to do exactly the same thing a few months later.
Yes, there are various reasons and excuses for doing something (these days
it is often the "green" environmental excuse), but it doesn't change the
fact that the customer is getting less for the same price.
There is very little change between newer models of phone these days, so removing the headphone jack, while yet again 'upgrading' the cameras
doesn't excuse them from not dropping the price for less functionality
That is the one of the supposed reasons ... but people have always told to use the charger that came with the device, because using a "wrong" charger can cause the batteries to catch fire.
Suddenly there is no charger in the box, but there are still plenty of "wrong" chargers out there that people are now using,
The "breadbox" / "breadbin" was the orinigal C64 (and VIC20) computer
itself, although mainly after the thinner C64C was released as a way to distinguish between the two. I've never heard the term used with the Commodore disk drives.
When you're talking about separate plug-in devices liek external
disk drives,
there's nothing stopping a third-party company making a competing
compatible product (copyrights and patents allowing of course).
Personally I have never owned a mobile phone at all. :-p
I have no need for one and it would be just yet another expense of continually paying for the plan fees
Heck, in just a few posts "Your Name" and I have discussed - exchanged
information in good faith - more than you have in this whole thread with
all
people in it.
I do wonder from time to time how he'd respond to a slap across the face.
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and
let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and
let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
Paul Goodman <[email protected]d> wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and
let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
FWIW you don't need a specific stand. Just pop your phone on its side while charging (even wired charging) and you activate the feature. I prefer not
to use wireless charging.
On 2025-06-23 05:38, Paul Goodman wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and
let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
I don't know if yours has it, but mine's got another place to put my
AirPods down for wireless charging as well...
<https://www.anker.com/ca/products/a2544-maggo-qi2-wireless-charger-magsafe-compatible>
Your Name,
...Are they ? What do you think it costs to manufacture small batches of
a certain product ?
Depend on the shop's agreement with the manufacturer.
No, what doe it cost the *manufacturer* to create a small batch.
You know, changing the machines to work with the differing device,
printing and adding different documentation, putting them into
different boxes and all that. in other words: the set-up costs. The
smaller the resulting batch, the higher the devided setup-cost will be
The line after the above ("And than there is the risk involved in not
getting all of them sold.") deals with the stuff you where thinking of.
As for gouging, that only works when a single manufacturer is involvedare colluding.
- or you must believe that all the manufacturers all over the world
Not colluding as such, but once Apple does something, all the others
quickly follow.
True. But its than also an argument againsts the OPs "they just do
that to make you pay more".
Samsung even has a habit of making fun of Apple for do it, only then
for Samsung to do exactly the same thing a few months later.
That is what seems to happen, but why does it happen ? Perhaps
because (most of) the buyers only want the newest-of-the-newest bling,
and the sales numbers of the older model drops ? IOW, the
manufacturing companies follow the customers wishes (opposing the OPs
claims) ?
Yes, there are various reasons and excuses for doing something (these
days it is often the "green" environmental excuse), but it doesn't
change the fact that the customer is getting less for the same price.
I already mentioned in this thread that (big) companies are not
altruistic. Worse, they are there to make as much money for their
investors as they can. And yes, that means if a company can shorten an
data cable by a decimeter or two and save a *lot* of money that way
than it will do so.
I was replying to you sentence:
"And its not only the manufacturer who runs that risk, but also all the resell points, upto-and-including the store"
If the store has a "sell or return" agreement, then the store has little
to no risk.
To some degree Apple and many other device makers already run "small
batch" manufacturing because users can order devices with their own
options (although admittedly the iPhone's options are a lot less than the
Mac options).
The manufacturer's usually create what they *think* the customer wants, without actually bothering to ask the customer
(or when they do, it's via a survey of a tiny proportion of the
customers).
There are always multiple "reasons" and "excuses" as to why a company does something. Many of them are silly and superfluous when the reality is that the changes usually simply mean more money for the company.
Car companies for example, plan their standard car colours due to what
they *think* will be in fashion once the car is on sale.
Once the manufacturer has made that choice, the customer usually has no option, other than buy or not buy.
Build to order options can make it easier for customers to get (to some degree) the features they actually do want.
Those who insist on buying the latest toy on the block when there current device still works perfectly well are simply idiots with more money than sense ... and it's these fools that big business relies on to keep going.
Which proves the point. The company *is* trying to make more money at the customer's expense ... i.e. they *are* goughing the customer
(to some degree). :-p
I have a good USB-C charger already which is compatible to USB-PD and Qualcomm Quickcharge and wouldn't need another one when buying a new phone.
You win. What else?
It's fine that you're happy with a phone lacking basic functionality.
The only thing I care about is that you UNDERSTAND what happened.
I understand totally - and I am totally fine with it! And no, I was not "fleeced" by Google, I *want* it this way! If Google saves money by not having to put in an SD card slot and aux jack - fine!
I have a good USB-C charger already which is compatible to USB-PD
and Qualcomm Quickcharge and wouldn't need another one when buying
a new phone.
I will always agree to logical statements, but I'll also disagree
when someone makes a statement that is so illogical, it's absurd.
You win. What else?
It's interesting how you devolve into a child when faced with logic.
You have no defense whatsoever to logic and facts.
Just insults.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:20:29 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
It's fine that you're happy with a phone lacking basic functionality.
The only thing I care about is that you UNDERSTAND what happened.
I understand totally - and I am totally fine with it! And no, I was not
"fleeced" by Google, I *want* it this way! If Google saves money by not
having to put in an SD card slot and aux jack - fine!
Google appreciates that they fleeced you and you don't even realize it.
The fact you paid more for less is how they fleeced you.
A lot more money.
For a lot less phone.
You got fleeced.
And you're happy getting fleeced.
And that's fine.
But you being happy by being fleeced doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Look everyone: Arlen learned a new word today!
Google appreciates that they fleeced you and you don't even realize it.
The fact you paid more for less is how they fleeced you.
A lot more money.
For a lot less phone.
You got fleeced.
And you're happy getting fleeced.
And that's fine.
But you being happy by being fleeced doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Look everyone: Arlen learned a new word today!
May I ask when you say you wouldn't consider a 64GB phone if that phone had >> an sd slot or not as it makes an astoundingly huge difference which it is.
I want more storage space, and I do not consider storage in a card as equivalent. I consider it as a hack.
For instance, my WhatsApp storage is several gigabytes. A lot of
storage. And can not go into a card. Ok, it can be done, but at the cost
of making it slower and less reliable.
So you *did* need it.
You simply replaced *some* of what it did with a phone with more storage.
My phone does have an SD slot, and I don't use it.
But it's *impossible* to replace what portable storage does with permanent >> storage. You can work around some of the issues - but not all of them.
I consider the reverse: you are working around the lack of internal
storage with a hack: installing an external card.
I'm glad you're being reasonable in that you understood that permanent
storage costs an arm and a leg at yesterday's inflated prices, because you >> have to plan ahead for five years of use of that phone when you buy a phone >> that does not have an sd slot. You get no second chances.
You do not know what it costs, because you have to compare model prices
when the _only_ difference is the internal storage size. Often more
storage comes in a model with several more features, starting with more RAM.
In your use model, how would you copy over all the OSMAnd data to a
replacement phone? And how would you copy over all your APKs to the
replacement phone (especially if many aren't from the Google Play repo)?
There is a tool that replicates the phone.
And how would you copy over your homescreen from the old phone to the new
phone so that every folder and app is exactly in the same place?
I'm not saying you can't do that - but I am asking HOW you do that.
By hand, but that's a different issue. I don't use a phone desktop app
except the default one, so no export/import/backup feature.
Ah, Chris, it *is* a fact.
I'm not Chris.
The fact you think it's not a fact, is disconcerting to me.
I'm trying to be nice when I say this, because it's clearly a fact.
I don't know if you ever took logic in college, but I did.
Not a fact. It is your opinion.
One of the cars has basic industry-standard functionality removed.
The other car does not have that basic standard functionality removed.
It is your opinion that "whatever" is a basic industry standard functionality.
There's no harm in having it there. None whatsoever, despite the "theoretical" harm that never shows up in prices or IP ratings or in
battery capacity (since sd slot hardware is puny & cheap by all accounts).
I use it all day, every day. In fact, I just belatedly realized when I got the first 3 free Samsung Galaxies, I added a 32GB sdcard to each.
I know this, belatedly, because I just ran into this archive from 2021!
I used to set the volume label to 0000-0001, 0000-0002, 0000-0003, etc.,
but then I learned to set all the sd cards to the same volume label.
I started with three 64GB free phones, and I added those 32GB to each of
the three free phones, and then I added 64GB, and then 128GB, and they each currently have an extra 256GB etc.
Anyway... with that in mind, I understand that internal storage
is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from portable storage. Almost nothing in
common.
If I ever disagree with a logically sensible viewpoint, then shoot me.
where my assessments are always based on the facts.
Nobody but a fool would disagree with that sentiment.
And I'm no fool.
We'd have to ask "how much less reliable" (as in, "does it matter?").
And we'd have to ask "how much slower" (as in, "is it unusable").
But I would never disagree with anyone who says internal storage is
more reliable and faster than portable storage.
It's functionality that isn't there, that, in the case of Samsung
phones, used to almost always be there. Now it's gone in some
Samsung phones.
If the most erudite argument you can make against sd card slots is
that you don't like the adjectives I use to describe them, then you
have no argument.
I do NOT put my whatsapp videos on the sdcard, although now that
you mention it, I get videos every day, all day of the new great
grandchild.
So I should think about porting my WhatsApp "media" folder to portable storage, where the *simplest* port is a simply copy from sd0 to sd1.
Notice that this has NO impact whatsoever on WhatsApp speed, right?
(It might even make WhatsApp faster for all I know - but not slower.)
So why do you think they remofved it in the expensive phones?
You must answer that question becuase it's a fact they removed
it.
Be logical please.
Be sensible.
They know you have to buy back all that functionality they took away.
Which is why they do it.
Your Name,
(or when they do, it's via a survey of a tiny proportion of the customers).
Thats called statistically probing. It time-wise and financially makes
no sense to call /all/ (prospective!) customers and ask them about a
new product.
There are always multiple "reasons" and "excuses" as to why a company
does something. Many of them are silly and superfluous when the reality
is that the changes usually simply mean more money for the company.
:-( Now you're starting to sound like Arlen (Marion). You have zero
to go on in that direction, while I've been trying to provide several
reasons why prices change. If you do have reasons to think such a
thing than please include them. I regard this as a discussion, and I'm
quite willing to hear and consider such information.
Car companies for example, plan their standard car colours due to what
they *think* will be in fashion once the car is on sale.
Not a good example, as you can effectivily buy a car of any color and
than give it a paint job. Yes, thats more expensive than going with
one of the standard colors. So, most people don't.
But its actually a nice example to why car manufacturers will not paint
their cars in every color there is : there is a good chance that they
will than not sell all the cars with less-favorable colors. Just
imagine yourself in a purple-and-yellow pokedot car. Or a two-color chessboard pattern. Or, as a straight hetro, in a pink one. :-) So,
the manufacturer chooses to paint their cars with "safe" colors, to
minimize any losses in that regard.
Build to order options can make it easier for customers to get (to some
degree) the features they actually do want.
And as I already tried to explain, quite a "bit" more expensive. Most
likely the whole device would than need to be redesigned, as a
smartphone is rather compact (very little, if any empty space), and you
can't just throw another component into it.
Those who insist on buying the latest toy on the block when there
current device still works perfectly well are simply idiots with more
money than sense ... and it's these fools that big business relies on
to keep going.
Absolutily. And you should include those to-much-money bling-bling
people as a cause of stuff getting more expensive. :-|
Which proves the point. The company *is* trying to make more money at
the customer's expense ... i.e. they *are* goughing the customer
(to some degree). :-p
I'm glad you added that smiley. :-)
Yes, companies are out to make as much money off of their customers as
they can. On the other hand, customers expect/demand "the best ever {product}", while not really wanting to pay a cent for it. IOW, they
are thieves too. <whistle>
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-23 10:43, Chris wrote:
Paul Goodman <[email protected]d> wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and
let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
FWIW you don't need a specific stand. Just pop your phone on its side while >>> charging (even wired charging) and you activate the feature. I prefer not >>> to use wireless charging.
Oh, I'm aware.
It's just that simply putting your phone on its side and having it
reliably stay there isn't always easy. If you want it to actually stay
put, you probably need a stand. So why not one that charges it too?
Why don't you like wireless charging?
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
On Jun 24, 2025 at 7:23:37 PM EDT, "Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
I don't use "wireless charging" because to me, it is both stupid and pointless.
Imagine "Wireless Networking" that only worked while the phone was sitting on the "Wireless Networking" dock. You pick it up and "Wireless Networking" stops. Not to mention that it is not "Wireless". The wire goes to the "dock"
instead of the phone. How is that "Wireless"?
And "Wireless Charging" does create more heat. That can't be a good thing for the battery.
I just don't see any advantage to it. I can actually use the phone while it is plugged in and charging.
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
Wireless Charging" does create more heat. That can't be a good thing
for the battery.
I just don't see any advantage to it. I can actually use the phone
while it is plugged in and charging.
So why do you think they remofved it in the expensive phones?
You must answer that question becuase it's a fact they removed
it.
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
Not sure. I think I've seen figures of 10%.
Having done statistics at university, surveys / polls / studies are not accurate.
The cost of any hardware features on a device are passed on to the
customer, usually at an inflated price. Removing the feature rarely
results in a lower price, so that "extra" money goes straight into the company's pockets.
The extra cost of the slightly improved camera may replace the cost of the removed headphone jack, but such a tweak in the new model's features
doesn't cover the cost of the removed charger.
They don't use "safe" colours" They use the colours that their over-paid fashion experts tell them will be "in vogue" when the car is released.
and you can't just throw another component into it.
Technically you can,
but not with Apple's design ethos of having no visible screws
and soldering everything down.
There are one or two makers that specifically have modular cellphones
where the user can plug toegether the features they want.
The main cause of so-called "inflation" is the ever-increasing pay packet given to the morons in management.
Most people are willing to pay a sensible price, but the reality is most companies (especially tech companies) gough the customer for as mush as
they can thanks to the greedy stupidity of "supply and demand". :-(
What the morons in management rarely understand is that if the product was cheaper, more people would likely buy it ... rather than selling less
product at a higher price.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-24 16:01, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-23 10:43, Chris wrote:
Paul Goodman <[email protected]d> wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and >>>>>>> let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
FWIW you don't need a specific stand. Just pop your phone on its side while
charging (even wired charging) and you activate the feature. I prefer not >>>>> to use wireless charging.
Oh, I'm aware.
It's just that simply putting your phone on its side and having it
reliably stay there isn't always easy. If you want it to actually stay >>>> put, you probably need a stand. So why not one that charges it too?
Why don't you like wireless charging?
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
Not sure. I think I've seen figures of 10%.
Put it into concrete terms how much more electricity it uses and what
that costs you.
It's not the personal cost, but the global increase in demand when we
should be doing literally everything we can do reduce our energy use.
But how can it possibly reduce the life of the battery?
Wireless charging induces increased heat in the battery which we know can reduce the lifetime of batteries. It may be minimal, but I do find that the phone struggles to reliably last a day. So any loss in capacity should be avoided.
Regardless of whether the source is the coil of the wireless charger, or
from a charging port, the current and voltage that are delivered to the
battery are still controlled by the charging circuit.
It's a personal choice.
Chris,
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
Not sure. I think I've seen figures of 10%.
[quote]
As expected, Apple's MagSafe charger did relatively well in the 0-100%
charge scenario but as the graph shows, there were some key differences when compared to our baseline wired test. First off, we can see the power draw ramps up faster and earlier in the charge process but also ramps down a little quicker later on. This results in a total energy use of 23.33Wh. That's
a 24.4% increase in energy consumption when compared to our wired test and represents a 59% loss of energy to charge a 12.7Wh battery.
[/quote]
(Notice the "represents a 59% loss" at the end. And they have not even finished)
https://www.ifixit.com/News/94409/wireless-charging-trading-efficiency-for-convenience
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Marion <[email protected]> wrote:I've got... ...half a dozen chargers lying around the house.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:11:52 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
I have a good USB-C charger already which is compatible to USB-PD andI will always agree to logical statements, but I'll also disagree when
Qualcomm Quickcharge and wouldn't need another one when buying a new phone. >>
someone makes a statement that is so illogical, it's absurd.
Talking about yourself again.
Unfortunately, your statement above completely ignores basic math.
1 - 1 = 0
You made an assumption and you know what assume does?
Let's say you give that old phone to someone else, where you would
naturally give them the charger that charges that old phone, right?
They likely have a charger for their previous phone. Or given they've got a free phone shelling out for a charger is not a big deal.
Now you have 0 chargers.
Even in your scenario, most people have several chargers in their
possession so you are left with n-1 chargers where n is >1.
A nothing burger.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-25 00:20, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-24 16:01, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-23 10:43, Chris wrote:
Paul Goodman <[email protected]d> wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and >>>>>>>>> let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
FWIW you don't need a specific stand. Just pop your phone on its side while
charging (even wired charging) and you activate the feature. I prefer not
to use wireless charging.
Oh, I'm aware.
It's just that simply putting your phone on its side and having it >>>>>> reliably stay there isn't always easy. If you want it to actually stay >>>>>> put, you probably need a stand. So why not one that charges it too? >>>>>>
Why don't you like wireless charging?
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
Not sure. I think I've seen figures of 10%.
Put it into concrete terms how much more electricity it uses and what
that costs you.
It's not the personal cost, but the global increase in demand when we
should be doing literally everything we can do reduce our energy use.
Again: what percentage of global energy use is charging smartphones?
But how can it possibly reduce the life of the battery?
Wireless charging induces increased heat in the battery which we know can >>> reduce the lifetime of batteries. It may be minimal, but I do find that the >>> phone struggles to reliably last a day. So any loss in capacity should be >>> avoided.
Sorry, but you're going to have to produce a citation for that.
https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/146275/mobile-myth-does-fast-charging-ruin-your-phone-battery
I agree, however, the conclusion of the article is not to worry.
You just did... ...again.
Regardless of whether the source is the coil of the wireless charger, or >>>> from a charging port, the current and voltage that are delivered to the >>>> battery are still controlled by the charging circuit.
It's a personal choice.
Great.
Don't try to justify personal choices with bullshit statistics and
unsupported claims.
I haven't.
That article is about "fast charging"...
...and doesn't say a THING about wireless charging.
...(Notice the "represents a 59% loss" at the end. And they have not even
finished)
https://www.ifixit.com/News/94409/wireless-charging-trading-efficiency-for-convenience
And all utterly irrelevant.
The absolute amount of energy involved is negligible.
Android doesn't need more than 64GB of storage if it has an sd slot.
Why pay enormously inflated prices for storage you don't even need yet?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:11:52 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
I have a good USB-C charger already which is compatible to USB-PD and
Qualcomm Quickcharge and wouldn't need another one when buying a new phone.
I will always agree to logical statements, but I'll also disagree when someone makes a statement that is so illogical, it's absurd.
Unfortunately, your statement above completely ignores basic math.
1 - 1 = 0
Let's say you give that old phone to someone else, where you would
naturally give them the charger that charges that old phone, right?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:12:17 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
You win. What else?
It's interesting how you devolve into a child when faced with logic.
You have no defense whatsoever to logic and facts.
Just insults.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:20:29 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
It's fine that you're happy with a phone lacking basic functionality.
The only thing I care about is that you UNDERSTAND what happened.
I understand totally - and I am totally fine with it! And no, I was not
"fleeced" by Google, I *want* it this way! If Google saves money by not
having to put in an SD card slot and aux jack - fine!
Google appreciates that they fleeced you and you don't even realize it.
But you being happy by being fleeced doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Your Name,
and soldering everything down.
*What else* should they have done ? And if you think you have the
answer, do you think their phones would stay as thin as they now do ?
IOW, try to consider *both* sides of an/that equation please.
The main cause of so-called "inflation" is the ever-increasing pay
packet given to the morons in management.
Do you think that the cost of the components and stuff related to
actual manufacturing and the wages of all the people related to
manufacturers stays static ? I hope you don't.
And yes, I can see the gigantic ammounts of money (compared to my own
income) the upper echelons get (stipulated by contracts* agreed to by
the people who *actually* own the company (by way of shares) ), but I
also know that producing a *lot* of something also means that they earn
a *lot* of money.
* You reach a certain (sales?) goal, you get rewarded. It pushes the "morons in management" to actually work. :-)
Most people are willing to pay a sensible price, but the reality is
most companies (especially tech companies) gough the customer for as
mush as they can thanks to the greedy stupidity of "supply and demand".
:-(
The "reality" is that people still keep paying the asked price, and do
not just say No.
You might think of companies as "greedy" (which, as mentioned, its in
their charter) but buyers are absolutily stupid. The "bling" factor
reigns supreme. :-(
And age doesn't seem to be a factor. Kids who will "literally die"
when they don't get the latest nike sneakers and/or footbal cap to the
"la coste" shirts (with the crocodile on it) to adults who buy *very* expensive houses, cars, boats that they do not actually need.
What the morons in management rarely understand is that if the product
was cheaper, more people would likely buy it ... rather than selling
less product at a higher price.
:-) The larger companies have rooms full of bean-counters who's only
job it is to figure stuff out like that. If the second one would
actually result in more money *with a comparable risk* than they would
do it in a heartbeat.
Than again, the whole company culture of the higher management getting rewarded for reaching certain sales (read: money) goals it could throw
a wrench into the "comparable risk" part. And ofcourse the already
existing contracts. Don't forget about them.
That is a very glib and biased view. Surveys *can* absolutely give you accurate information that is impossible to get otherwise.
The difference between a *good* survey and bad one is huge. Don't confuse what you "learned" with the real world.
When I have a good charger already, why should I expect a new phone to
come with it's own charger? I don't need that.
Let's say you give that old phone to someone else, where you would
naturally give them the charger that charges that old phone, right?
No, I wouldn't, because the charger did not come with that old phone in
the first place and I wouldn't give it to anyone, since I still need it.
Alan,The actually claim he was trying to support (which you've now
That article is about "fast charging"...
...and doesn't say a THING about wireless charging.
Comparing apples to steaks much ?
Wireless or wired is the method of transport of the energy. Fast or slow
is how the charging is done.
IOW, don't try to play dumb games, you will only win stupid prizes.
Alan,I'm sorry, but the only dumb game is what you're playing here.
...(Notice the "represents a 59% loss" at the end. And they have not even
finished)
https://www.ifixit.com/News/94409/wireless-charging-trading-efficiency-for-convenience
And all utterly irrelevant.
The absolute amount of energy involved is negligible.
And on the grand scale of time the span of youyr life is utterly negligible too. Yet, for some reason, you rather not be killed but live your life to its natural end.
You would also scream bloody murder when you would notice that you would pay twice as much for what you buy as the person infront of you. Yet the whole ammount of money you would be able to gather in your whole life is still negligible compared to all the money in the world.
IOW, don't try to play dumb games, you will only win stupid prizes.
On 2025-06-25 08:52:46 +0000, R.Wieser said:
Your Name,
The main cause of so-called "inflation" is the ever-increasing pay
packet given to the morons in management.
Do you think that the cost of the components and stuff related to
actual manufacturing and the wages of all the people related to
manufacturers stays static ? I hope you don't.
They aren't, but it is mainly the management that benefits. The actual workers might get a measley 2% wage increase while the management gets
10% plus extra perks.
These increases then cause the company to have to increase the product
price, which in turn means the customer needs a wage increase from
their company to be able to buy things ... and the snowball laughing
called "inflation" keeps gaining more and more layers. Most of it is artificial nonsense created by greedy people wanting more money for themselves, and you don't get more greedy than management, who are
already massively overpaid for doing little actually useful.
I will agree with anyone who makes a sensibly logical statement
based on facts,
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:29:58 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it.
(all else being equal)
this is your opinion, not a fact. It depends on what are the
priorities of the owner.
(my phone does have a jack)
Hi Carlos, (this is a kinder gentler me, but always logically sensible)
It explains a lot when you claim that facts are opinions, as I've heard
that a lot - but usually they're not confused on an Android newsgroup.
I completely understand _why_ you think facts are opinions, but nonetheless
I have to explain, logically and sensibly why facts are simply facts.
There's no emotion involved in facts.
It is a fact that a phone with an aux jack or SD card slot possesses the hardware capability to perform specific functions (wired audio output, expandable local storage) that a phone without those features lacks.
When I say 'functional,' I'm referring to the range of built-in hardware capabilities a device possesses without needing external adapters or workarounds.
A phone with an aux jack has the inherent capability to output audio
directly to wired headphones, which a phone without one does not. This is a direct hardware capability.
Similarly, a phone with an SD card slot has the inherent capability to
expand its local storage beyond its internal memory, which a phone without one cannot do.
I understand that for some people, these features might not be a priority, and they might even prefer a phone without them for design reasons.
However, from a purely hardware-capability standpoint, the presence of
these features means the phone can do things that the other phone simply cannot do without external accessories or cloud services."
This isn't about whether someone wants to use these features, or whether they're important to a specific user. It's about the objective fact of what the physical hardware allows the device to do.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to tow a trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a trailer,
the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that the other one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent functionality is present.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:26:23 +0100, Andy Burns wrote :
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone.
And, until I cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
Here's an extreme example, but it proves the point ...
The actually claim he was trying to support (which you've now conveniently snipped) was:
"Wireless charging induces increased heat in the battery which we know can reduce the lifetime of batteries."
There is an implicit part of that claim that was left out:
"compared to wired charging"
The fact is that if you bought 5 iPhones, you'd need five new 20-Watt or
better chargers just to charge the phones at the speed you paid for.
That's up there amongst your stupidest comments.
Who needs to charge 5 phones *simultaneously*? At 20W? Even if you
didn't have chargers you could manage easily with buying just two.
Even if you didn't have chargers you could manage easily with buying just two.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:49:13 +1200, Your Name wrote :
me ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need those
functions. They remove things from a device without lowering the price,
and then charge extra to get those same functions back again. No longer
including a charger is another recent example.
I will agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible statement, even if that person has made illogical statements in the past, where not only did Apple first remove the charger in the box, but remember what Apple said.
a. Apple said you already had chargers, and,
b. Apple said it was green to remove the charger.
However, two facts remain that put the lie to Apple's words:
A. You didn't have 20W (or higher) PD chargers at that time, and,
B. You had to buy a charger from somewhere - which isn't green.
People need to be intelligent to see through the lies.
I'm sorry, but the only dumb game is what you're playing here.
On 2025-06-22 10:48:33 +0000, R.Wieser said:
Your Name,
In some ways they are gouging the customers who still want / need
those functions.
Are they ? What do you think it costs to manufacture small batches
of a certain product ? And than there is the risk involved in not
getting all of them sold. And its not only the manufacturer who runs
that risk, but also all the resell points, upto-and-including the
store, in between.
Depend on the shop's agreement with the manufacturer. In some cases the agreement is that any unsold product can be returned to the
manufacturer. This is pretty normal for magazines and books (the covers
are torn off and returned to the publisher for credit, while the rest of
the books / magazine goes in the bin / recycling). It also happens for
many other products.
Car companies for example, plan their standard car colours due to whatNot a good example, as you can effectivily buy a car of any color and than give it a paint job. Yes, thats more expensive than going with one of the standard colors. So, most people don't.
they*think* will be in fashion once the car is on sale.
But its actually a nice example to why car manufacturers will not paint
their cars in every color there is : there is a good chance that they will than not sell all the cars with less-favorable colors. Just imagine yourself in a purple-and-yellow pokedot car. Or a two-color chessboard pattern. Or, as a straight hetro, in a pink one. 🙂 So, the manufacturer chooses to paint their cars with "safe" colors, to minimize any losses in that regard.
It is quite feasible to order any colour the client desires. Same as you
can choose many options. Depends on the brand, but luxury brands offer
this.
Carlos,
It is quite feasible to order any colour the client desires. Same as you
can choose many options. Depends on the brand, but luxury brands offer
this.
Absolutily. For the right price ofcourse :-) And its even better/cheaper, as the color goes over the base coat, and not over another color (which
might even need to be removed first).
I just wanted to keep the comparision simple - as here are a few people here who seem to have trouble with even the most basic of examples.
Customization has become easier and cheaper. I just remembered a piece
about a box that would print a book and bind it on the spot, as you
waited. So that you could buy any "out of print" book :-)
When I bought my previous car, I had to wait while it was made. I chose my customizations; the colour was one, but out of a very limited range. My
car was not luxurious enough, rather a plain Corsa. But there was a long
list of things to choose from.
Who needs to charge 5 phones *simultaneously*?
Who needs to charge 5 phones *simultaneously*?
At 20W? Even if you didn't
have chargers you could manage easily with buying just two.
Again, ppl do
have existing chargers some will even charge two or more <gasp> devices at once!
When travelling in the car we manage to have one charger for four ppl.
Even on long journeys.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-25 11:16, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-25 00:20, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:Again: what percentage of global energy use is charging smartphones?
On 2025-06-24 16:01, Chris wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-06-23 10:43, Chris wrote:
Paul Goodman <[email protected]d> wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
[Snip]
...along with a cool nightstand for the phone that uses Magsafe and >>>>>>>>>>> let's me make the phone into my bedside clock.
:-)
I have one of those too and I love that feature.
FWIW you don't need a specific stand. Just pop your phone on its side while
charging (even wired charging) and you activate the feature. I prefer not
to use wireless charging.
Oh, I'm aware.
It's just that simply putting your phone on its side and having it >>>>>>>> reliably stay there isn't always easy. If you want it to actually stay >>>>>>>> put, you probably need a stand. So why not one that charges it too? >>>>>>>>
Why don't you like wireless charging?
It's inefficient and may reduce the life of the battery.
OK, it's inefficient.
By how much?
Not sure. I think I've seen figures of 10%.
Put it into concrete terms how much more electricity it uses and what >>>>>> that costs you.
It's not the personal cost, but the global increase in demand when we >>>>> should be doing literally everything we can do reduce our energy use. >>>>
But how can it possibly reduce the life of the battery?
Wireless charging induces increased heat in the battery which we know can >>>>> reduce the lifetime of batteries. It may be minimal, but I do find that the
phone struggles to reliably last a day. So any loss in capacity should be >>>>> avoided.
Sorry, but you're going to have to produce a citation for that.
https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/146275/mobile-myth-does-fast-charging-ruin-your-phone-battery
I agree, however, the conclusion of the article is not to worry.
That article is about "fast charging"...
Correct. My concern is about heat. Fast charging is known to generate heat either wirelessly or not.
This isn't about whether someone wants to use these features, or whether
they're important to a specific user. It's about the objective fact of
what
the physical hardware allows the device to do.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to
tow a
trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a trailer,
the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that the
other
one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent
functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car when
reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive damages. So, it
makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
People need to be intelligent to see through the lies.
My phone came with a charger.
I have a bunch of chargers that came with
my phones. I do not use them. They are no use to me.
Why?
Because I use chargers with multiple sockets capable of charging several devices at the same time. It would be ridiculous to use several chargers occupying several spaces in the power strip.
And those chargers are older than my phones.
Alan,
The actually claim he was trying to support (which you've now conveniently >> snipped) was:
"Wireless charging induces increased heat in the battery which we know can >> reduce the lifetime of batteries."
I also don't quote somebody claiming that water is wet, or the sun comes up in the east.
There is an implicit part of that claim that was left out:
"compared to wired charging"
No, it wasn't left out, you just missed(?) it. Hint: the word is "increased". You can't talk about change if you only have a single data point.
I'm trying to be really nice even as I'm always logical and sensible.
What you seem to be doing is defending Apple's lies about being green.
But that's what you're suggesting. But oh, it gets worse. Much
worse.
So now I have my wife, who has her own schedule, and myself, and
my two kids who, God knows where they are at any given moment, day
or night.
Are you seriously suggesting we all share the same charger every
night?
Writing again the quoting you removed:
]
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it.
(all else being equal)
It explains a lot when you claim that facts are opinions, as I've heard
that a lot - but usually they're not confused on an Android newsgroup.
And opinions are not fact. You claim that what are in fact your opinions
we accept as universal facts. We don't, they are just your opinions.
I understand that for some people, these features might not be a priority, >> and they might even prefer a phone without them for design reasons.
However, from a purely hardware-capability standpoint, the presence of
these features means the phone can do things that the other phone simply
cannot do without external accessories or cloud services."
Yes; the phone can do something or can not. However, it has a price, it
uses space, dirt or water can get it.
It is the user who decides if that
characteristic is important to him or not. If the user doesn't care,
then it is irrelevant.
Me, I prefer to have the jack. To me it is important.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to tow a >> trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a trailer,
the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that the other >> one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent
functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car when
reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive damages. So, it
makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone.
And, until I cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
The bank account, for instance, including payments. My health records.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Writing again the quoting you removed:
]
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it. >> ]> (all else being equal)
Carlos,
I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.
There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.
That's just pure unassailable logic, Carlos.
For you to disagree with that logic means you don't understand logic.
It explains a lot when you claim that facts are opinions, as I've heard
that a lot - but usually they're not confused on an Android newsgroup.
And opinions are not fact. You claim that what are in fact your opinions
we accept as universal facts. We don't, they are just your opinions.
Carlos,
It's not an opinion when I say there are X number of things a phone with
the aux jack can do, while there are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.
If you claim that logically sensible statement is merely an opinion, open
to debate, then it simply means you don't understand what we're discussing.
I hope I'm being nice - but I can't figure out a nicer way to say that
either you understand that if you have two phones which are exactly the
same except one lacks the ability of portable storage, then the phone
without the portable storage can't do everything the phone with it can.
It's absurd that I have to even state something that obvious, Carlos.
Nobody in the world would disagree with that logically sensible point.
Except you.
And the Apple trolls.
The fact I have to *repeat* this is already at the point of absurdity.
I understand that for some people, these features might not be a priority, >>> and they might even prefer a phone without them for design reasons.
However, from a purely hardware-capability standpoint, the presence of
these features means the phone can do things that the other phone simply >>> cannot do without external accessories or cloud services."
Yes; the phone can do something or can not. However, it has a price, it
uses space, dirt or water can get it.
OK. Carlos. For the first time in this message, you've been sensible.
Of course there are drawbacks to the aux jack, where one of them is
potential waterproofing - but - and this is what matters - nobody can find any evidence that phones without the aux jack have any higher IP ratings
than phones with the aux jack. So it's a red herring.
Likewise, of course a phone without the aux jack has more room for other stuff, such as, oh, say, a bigger battery. But again, there is no evidence that shows that is the case in the real world. Another red herring.
Similarly, of course a phone without the aux jack should be less expensive than a phyone with the aux jack, but again and again, there is no evidence that the OEM is passing that cost savings back on to you.
So, sure, theoretically, removing the aux jack has benefits; but nobody can find these benefits in the real world, which is the world I happen to live in.
It is the user who decides if that
characteristic is important to him or not. If the user doesn't care,
then it is irrelevant.
Me, I prefer to have the jack. To me it is important.
This is the second time you've said something sensible in this post.
Nobody sensible would agree that if you don't need or want something, than not having it is no loss - but - and this is big - there's a catch.
Remember when Arno said he didn't need portable storage because he paid an arm and a leg for a phone that had enough internal storage to last him the lifetime of the phone? Remember that?
So there *is* a penalty.
Likewise, remember someone said that they don't use wired headphones so
they don't need the aux jack? Of course, that's fine - but - and this is important - can you charge the phone and use the USB port for headphones simultaneously? What if your bluetooth battery dies in your headphones?
What if you're on a long international trip on a plane where you must use headphones the entire time?
The fact is unassailable that if you take two phones, where the only difference is one lacks the headphone jack, that the phone with the
headphone jack has X amount of capabilities, while the phone without it has less than X amount of capabilities. That's just an unassailable fact.
It's not an opinion.
It's a fact.
It's distasteful that I have to repeat something so obvious.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to tow a >>> trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a trailer, >>> the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that the other >>> one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent
functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car when
reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive damages. So, it
makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
When you resort to attacking the analogy, it means you have no defense to
the logical argument that the phone with the headphone jack has X amount of capabilities, while the phone without it has less than X amount of capabilities. That's just an unassailable fact you happen to not like.
You don't appear to like that fact.
But not liking facts doesn't change that they're facts nonetheless.
It's distasteful that I have to explain something so obvious.
Let's just give up. OK. You don't like facts. I do.
We're different that way.
No, it wasn't left out, you just missed(?) it. Hint: the word is
"increased". You can't talk about change if you only have a single data
point.
But you article doesn't compare wired versus wireless.
What's ironic here is that there are essentially no trucks sold today that actually have a hitch.
The have a receiver that the buyer can use to ADD the actual hitch, and
those hitches can be of multiple types.
It's about the objective fact of what the physical hardware allows the
device to do.
Alan,
No, it wasn't left out, you just missed(?) it. Hint: the word is
"increased". You can't talk about change if you only have a single data >>> point.
But you article doesn't compare wired versus wireless.
And thats than the second thing you "missed" from even just my quote of the article.
Whats next, you missing all the "e"s in the quote and claim it, and thus the article, is nonsense ?
Yes, you *are* playing dumb games - just like you did a couple of years ago, which landed you into my "killfile".So very brave!
Alan,
I'm sorry, but the only dumb game is what you're playing here.
So, which game do you think am I playing ? I don't see it, but you seem
to. The *least* you could do is to explain what you think you see.
I already explained why I am sure *you* are playing a dumb game (and with this post are continuing to do so). You could at least return the favour - you don't even have to be sure about it, an explanation will do fine too.You can't do the basic arithmetic involved?
And I see that you have forgotten (again) to defend why you think that "The absolute amount of energy involved is negligible.", as currently we only
have that claim, and not even an explanation.
I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.
There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can
do.
Carlos,
It's not an opinion when I say there are X number of things a
phone with the aux jack can do, while there are fewer than X
number of things a phone without it can do.
Of course there are drawbacks to the aux jack, where one of them
is potential waterproofing - but - and this is what matters - nobody
can find any evidence that phones without the aux jack have any higher
IP ratings than phones with the aux jack. So it's a red herring.
Me, I prefer to have the jack. To me it is important.
This is the second time you've said something sensible in
this post.
Nobody sensible would agree that if you don't need or want something, than not having it is no loss - but - and this is big - there's a catch.
Remember when Arno said he didn't need portable storage because he paid an arm and a leg for a phone that had enough internal storage to last him the lifetime of the phone? Remember that?
So there *is* a penalty.
Likewise, remember someone said that they don't use wired headphones so
they don't need the aux jack? Of course, that's fine - but - and this is important - can you charge the phone and use the USB port for headphones simultaneously?
What if your bluetooth battery dies in your headphones?
What if you're on a long international trip on a plane where
you must use headphones the entire time?
The fact is unassailable that if you take two phones, where the only difference is one lacks the headphone jack, that the phone with the
headphone jack has X amount of capabilities, while the phone without it
has
less than X amount of capabilities. That's just an unassailable fact.
It's distasteful that I have to repeat something so obvious.
When you resort to attacking the analogy, it means you have no
defense to the logical argument
It's distasteful that I have to explain something so obvious.
Let's just give up. OK.
You don't like facts. I do.
We're different that way.
Hi Carlos,
I don't know how to respond to that absurd statement while being
nice, but I will try, where remember, I am always logically sensible
at all times.
When you say "charger" that's just absurd. There is no such thing.
It's a 5-Watt charger. Or a 20-Watt PD charger. Or a 30-Watt QC charger.
Those are NOT the same thing.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problem.
Worse, Apple has *never* in its entire history of selling iPhones,
ever put a 20-Watt PD charger in any iPhone box ever sold in the
entire world.
Think about that fact.
The logical fact is Apple lied.
It's not green.
So, which game do you think am I playing ? I don't see it, but you seem
to. The *least* you could do is to explain what you think you see.
How about the one the removes all context so people can't see why I sad
what I said?
And I see that you have forgotten (again) to defend why you think that
"The
absolute amount of energy involved is negligible.", as currently we only
have that claim, and not even an explanation.
You can't do the basic arithmetic involved?
OK!
I'll just click on the link to the previous post...
...oh, wait!
You've removed those too!
The article does not support the contention that using wireless charging results in more heat than wired charging.
Period.
Yes, you *are* playing dumb games - just like you did a couple of yearsSo very brave!
ago, which landed you into my "killfile".
Alan,
The article does not support the contention that using wireless charging
results in more heat than wired charging.
Period.
Ah, the famous "because I say so" argument. Well, if you want to play dumb that way than do not let me stop you.
Alan,
So, which game do you think am I playing ? I don't see it, but you seem >>> to. The *least* you could do is to explain what you think you see.
How about the one the removes all context so people can't see why I sad
what I said?
Well, as opposed to you, I think that people are smart enough to figure out how find the parent post and look for themselves.
And I see that you have forgotten (again) to defend why you think that
"The
absolute amount of energy involved is negligible.", as currently we only >>> have that claim, and not even an explanation.
You can't do the basic arithmetic involved?
OK!
Ah yes, ignoring my explanation (in the form of two examples) to why that that equation is a blatant attempt to ignore the problem. Oh well, I can't say I'm surprised.
I'll just click on the link to the previous post...
...oh, wait!
You've removed those too!
What are you doing here if you can't even follow the thread up to the parent post(s) and look at it for yourself ?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:57:55 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
People need to be intelligent to see through the lies.
My phone came with a charger.
Hi Carlos,
I don't know how to respond to that absurd statement while being nice, but
I will try, where remember, I am always logically sensible at all times.
When you say "charger" that's just absurd. There is no such thing.
It's a 5-Watt charger. Or a 20-Watt PD charger. Or a 30-Watt QC charger.
Those are NOT the same thing.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problem.
But worse, if you don't understand the problem, you can't defend the
solution that you're proposing because a 5-Watt charger is garbage.
You could have an entire drawer full of 5-Watt chargers and they'd be essentially worthless compared to a single 20-Watt PD/QC charger, Carlos.
Until you show you understand that logic, your arguments won't make sense.
Having said that, my 3 free Galaxies all came with the *correct* charger in the box, so I fully understand that a 20-Watt PD/QC charger works wonders.
But when you say "a charger" without saying the wattage or protocol,
there's no indication that you comprehend the technical aspect of the
problem set. (Am I being nice when I point out this logical fallacy?)
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:42:27 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone.
And, until I cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
The bank account, for instance, including payments. My health records.
Hi Carlos,
You can shoot me if I ever say anything that's not logically sensible, so I understand that for *you*, the thieves get a lot of private sensitive data (if you don't wipe your phone remotely and if they can access the device).
They get, oh, your bank account, your health records, your contacts, your photos (with perhaps sensitive EXIF information embedded), your Wi-Fi
access point record, your browser web histories, your passwords maybe even (if you keep them in a plain text file), your ICE contact, maybe even your home address, your map routing information - perhaps to your best friend's home in addition to your home, perhaps all your social media accounts, all your sms/mms messages, your upcoming calendar appointments, etc.
But I didn't ask Andy what they get if they steal his, or your phone.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Writing again the quoting you removed:
]
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it. >> ]> (all else being equal)
Carlos,
I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.
There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:42:27 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone.
And, until I cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
The bank account, for instance, including payments. My health records.
Hi Carlos,
You can shoot me if I ever say anything that's not logically sensible, so I understand that for *you*, the thieves get a lot of private sensitive data (if you don't wipe your phone remotely and if they can access the device).
They get, oh, your bank account, your health records, your contacts, your photos (with perhaps sensitive EXIF information embedded), your Wi-Fi
access point record, your browser web histories, your passwords maybe even (if you keep them in a plain text file), your ICE contact, maybe even your home address, your map routing information - perhaps to your best friend's home in addition to your home, perhaps all your social media accounts, all your sms/mms messages, your upcoming calendar appointments, etc.
But I didn't ask Andy what they get if they steal his, or your phone.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
Remember when Arno said he didn't need portable storage because he paid an arm and a leg for a phone that had enough internal storage to last him the lifetime of the phone? Remember that?
So there *is* a penalty.
Likewise, remember someone said that they don't use wired headphones so
they don't need the aux jack? Of course, that's fine - but - and this is important - can you charge the phone and use the USB port for headphones simultaneously? What if your bluetooth battery dies in your headphones?
What if you're on a long international trip on a plane where you must use headphones the entire time?
Marion, 2025-06-26 18:00:
[...]
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
So whay do you use a smartphone, if you don't have any data on it
anyway? What are the "1000 apps" you have there for? And why do you need
an SD card when you don't store anything on it?
Having said that, my 3 free Galaxies all came with the *correct* charger in the box, so I fully understand that a 20-Watt PD/QC charger works wonders.
You need, at a bare minimum, a 20-Watt PD charger for iPhones, and often a 20-Watt (at least) PD/QC charger for Android phones. That's just a fact.
On 2025-06-26 01:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
This isn't about whether someone wants to use these features, or whether >>> they're important to a specific user. It's about the objective fact
of what
the physical hardware allows the device to do.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to
tow a
trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a
trailer,
the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that the
other
one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent
functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car when
reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive damages. So, it
makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
What's ironic here is that there are essentially no trucks sold today
that actually have a hitch.
The have a receiver that the buyer can use to ADD the actual hitch, and
those hitches can be of multiple types.
Just like you can use the USB port of a smartphone for multiple purposes.
:-
Marion, 2025-06-26 17:51:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Writing again the quoting you removed:
]
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to one with it. >>> ]> (all else being equal)
Carlos,
I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.
There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.
Correct.
But that's mostly irrelevant, since there are many people out there who
just don't need these things.
If *all* people would *need* an aux jack in a smartphone, they would
never buy devices without it. But this is not the case - iPhones are
still sold in big numbers as well as many Android phones without an aux
jack.
It seems, people are fine with inferior phones. Since the don't need the superior functions. Similar to the fact, that not everybody needs a big station wagon even if that is superior to the small car and can do
things, you can't do with the small car.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 22:21:27 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
When I have a good charger already, why should I expect a new phone to
come with it's own charger? I don't need that.
Hi Arno,
I'm being nice when I inform you that not all chargers are the same.
There's a concept of Wattage and Protocol (PD/QC) that you need to learn.
The point is that everyone has 5-Watt chargers but they're useless.
Carlos,
Customization has become easier and cheaper. I just remembered a piece
about a box that would print a book and bind it on the spot, as you
waited. So that you could buy any "out of print" book :-)
I read about that too. I always wondered how well the binding would work, as old-style gluing would take a while to dry. I've also read about pizza-building machines. Can't remember having read how well they work in the real world though.
When I bought my previous car, I had to wait while it was made. I chose my >> customizations; the colour was one, but out of a very limited range. My
car was not luxurious enough, rather a plain Corsa. But there was a long
list of things to choose from.
That sounds like the manufacturer just made its cars in a limited set of colors (as it always did), and you could choose which add-ons you wanted to have bolted on. With that last part likely been done by the dealer.
Offering those "customisations"* is not a bad way to make the buyer feel
like he's a valued customer though. :-) Smart thinking.
* shifting away from the idea of after-market,
you-have-to-find-them-yourself additions I mean.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On 2025-06-26 18:00, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:42:27 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone.
And, until I cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
The bank account, for instance, including payments. My health records.
Hi Carlos,
You can shoot me if I ever say anything that's not logically sensible, so I >> understand that for *you*, the thieves get a lot of private sensitive data >> (if you don't wipe your phone remotely and if they can access the device). >>
They get, oh, your bank account, your health records, your contacts, your
photos (with perhaps sensitive EXIF information embedded), your Wi-Fi
access point record, your browser web histories, your passwords maybe even >> (if you keep them in a plain text file), your ICE contact, maybe even your >> home address, your map routing information - perhaps to your best friend's >> home in addition to your home, perhaps all your social media accounts, all >> your sms/mms messages, your upcoming calendar appointments, etc.
But I didn't ask Andy what they get if they steal his, or your phone.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
It is not about you, it is about the majority of the people.
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations with
my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's normality.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:57:55 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
People need to be intelligent to see through the lies.
My phone came with a charger.
Hi Carlos,
I don't know how to respond to that absurd statement while being nice, but
I will try, where remember, I am always logically sensible at all times.
When you say "charger" that's just absurd. There is no such thing.
It's a 5-Watt charger. Or a 20-Watt PD charger. Or a 30-Watt QC charger.
Those are NOT the same thing.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problem.
But worse, if you don't understand the problem, you can't defend the
solution that you're proposing because a 5-Watt charger is garbage.
You could have an entire drawer full of 5-Watt chargers and they'd be essentially worthless compared to a single 20-Watt PD/QC charger, Carlos.
Until you show you understand that logic, your arguments won't make sense.
Having said that, my 3 free Galaxies all came with the *correct* charger in the box, so I fully understand that a 20-Watt PD/QC charger works wonders.
But when you say "a charger" without saying the wattage or protocol,
there's no indication that you comprehend the technical aspect of the
problem set. (Am I being nice when I point out this logical fallacy?)
Because I use chargers with multiple sockets capable of charging several
devices at the same time. It would be ridiculous to use several chargers
occupying several spaces in the power strip.
That's absurd Carlos. Do you realize why? I have four people on my plan.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg>
That's realistic, right? Two kids. Two parents. So that's four phones.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg>
One of them did not come with a charger because it's a crappy iPhone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg>
Are you seriously suggesting that kid sneak into either her parent'sbedroom or her brother's bedroom every single night to charge her phone?
Your argument isn't logically defensible, and I'm saying this as nicely as
I can because nobody has an entire family sleeping in the same bedroom.
Unless they live in the slums - which is what Apple suggests we do.
And those chargers are older than my phones.
I'm sure they are.
We all have a drawer full of worthless 5-Watt chargers, Chris.
But the iPhone mini that I bought that was so "green" requires a 20-Watt PD charger to properly charge it at the speeds that I paid for it to charge.
And Apple have never in its entire history of selling iPhones ever put even close to a 20-Watt PD charger in any iPhone box ever sold in the world.
The logical fact is Apple lied.
It's not green.
It's a lie.
It's marketing.
Apple thinks we're stupid.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
It is not about you, it is about the majority of the people.
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations with my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's normality.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:01 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Please don't make excuses for illogical behaviors.
It is not illogical. I still have more than 30 GB free memory in my
phone. I don't need more. This is not illogical.
A phone without the sd card (all else being equal) is always going to be >>> inferior in capability to a phone with the sd card. That's pure logic.
So what? I don't the superior phone, no matter how you try to convince me.
Hi Arno (I'm following Carlos' advice to be extremely patient & kind)
How about the one the removes all context so people can't see why I sad
what I said?
Well, as opposed to you, I think that people are smart enough to figure
out how find the parent post and look for themselves.
Not when you quite deliberately removed the "Reference" header entries...
Therefore, in your two replies to me where you snipped all context, you
have deliberately chosen to remove the references to make it harder for people to fact-check you.
You're really quite the little coward aren't you?
The article does not support the contention that using wireless charging >>> results in more heat than wired charging.
Period.
Ah, the famous "because I say so" argument. Well, if you want to play
dumb
that way than do not let me stop you.
If I'm so wrong, why don't you present a quote from that article that supports the claim that wireless charging results in more heat than wired charging?
Oh, right!
You killfiled me...
...or so you said before...
...yet somehow you managed to reply to my post after that point!
But I'll tell you, there is no support for that contention in that
article.
What's ironic here is that there are essentially no trucks sold today that >> actually have a hitch.
You know whats *really* ironic ? That you seem to have /no idea/ what an example is.
On 2025-06-27 06:57:23 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-26 18:00, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:42:27 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves
get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone. And, until I
cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
The bank account, for instance, including payments. My health
records.
Hi Carlos,
You can shoot me if I ever say anything that's not logically
sensible, so I understand that for *you*, the thieves get a lot
of private sensitive data (if you don't wipe your phone remotely
and if they can access the device).
They get, oh, your bank account, your health records, your
contacts, your photos (with perhaps sensitive EXIF information
embedded), your Wi-Fi access point record, your browser web
histories, your passwords maybe even (if you keep them in a
plain text file), your ICE contact, maybe even your home
address, your map routing information - perhaps to your best
friend's home in addition to your home, perhaps all your social
media accounts, all your sms/mms messages, your upcoming
calendar appointments, etc.
But I didn't ask Andy what they get if they steal his, or your
phone.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
It is not about you, it is about the majority of the people.
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations
with my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's
normality.
"Normality" is not having a mobile phone at all and actually going
to the bank branch to do your banking. :-p
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Having said that, my 3 free Galaxies all came with the *correct* charger in >> the box, so I fully understand that a 20-Watt PD/QC charger works wonders.
No, Samsung chargers will not support QC, only USB-PD.
There are chargers which support USB-PD and QC likewise and 65 watts or
even more, depending on how much you spend. I have such a device - works
with *all* USB-C devices I have hear - laptop, tablet, smartphone.
You need, at a bare minimum, a 20-Watt PD charger for iPhones, and often a >> 20-Watt (at least) PD/QC charger for Android phones. That's just a fact.
Yep - and these are available and not very expensive. Buy once, use for
many years when switching devices.
No, I don't need to learn that, I already know. Did I mention, that I am
in electronics too?
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/topic/electronics>
And the correct term is not "PD" but "USB-PD".
And both protocols,
USB-PD and QuickCharge come in different versions and work with
different voltages to achieve the wattage without burning the cable or
plugs.
Do you even understand why a higher voltage is needed to be able
to deliver 20, 40 or even 65 watts using a USB-C cable?
And I also have a USB-C powered soldering iron: <https://arnowelzel.de/en/pinecil-v2>
So don't tell me, that I have to learn something in this area.
The point is that everyone has 5-Watt chargers but they're useless.
I don't have 5-watt chargers. Mine have at least 65, some even more.
That sounds like the manufacturer just made its cars in a limited set of
colors (as it always did), and you could choose which add-ons you wanted
to have bolted on. With that last part likely been done by the dealer.
No, I suspect it was done by the manufacturer.
Other customizations affected the pilar with the radio and controllers,
air conditioning or not or climatization... big things that need a bid disassembly-assembly job if done at the dealer.
However, they did not customize the manual book, which was a mess with all options (go to page X if you have or not have option Y). They could easily print a customized book with latex.
You're really quite the little coward aren't you?
You are really playing(?) the dumb shit right upto the hole, aren't you, trying to make it sound as if looking at those message-headers is the *only* thing you are able to do.
I will always agree with anyone who says something sensible and
logical. No matter who that person is, nor what they may have
said in the past.
To his credit, Rudy understood what an analogy is and what it
does.
Neither Alan nor Carlos understands the concept of an analogy.
The very fact that both Carlos & Alan absurdly fought the analogy
instead of understanding the concept, actually indicates a far
larger problem.
If people can't even understand the simplest of analogies of why
a device that has basic hardware can do more than a device that
lacks basic hardware, then no amount of discussion will get that
concept into them.
They'll just say all facts are opinions when they can't accept facts.
Carlos,
That sounds like the manufacturer just made its cars in a limited set of >>> colors (as it always did), and you could choose which add-ons you wanted >>> to have bolted on. With that last part likely been done by the dealer.
No, I suspect it was done by the manufacturer.
Also possible, just less likely in *my* mind. :-)
Other customizations affected the pilar with the radio and controllers,
air conditioning or not or climatization... big things that need a bid
disassembly-assembly job if done at the dealer.
Hmmm... now I'm imagining a manufacturing plant with cars on their rails being switched in-and-out of the main branch, for their individual customisations to be added.
It probably works different though (workers having to wait, doing nothing,
on the next customisation coming along their line ? That would be a loss of manhours).
However, they did not customize the manual book, which was a mess with all >> options (go to page X if you have or not have option Y). They could easily >> print a customized book with latex.
Odd : they want to make you feel like a valued customer, but than make it complicated to make your choices. Almost as if two, each other opposing parties within the same company are in play ...
I imagine they could also have made a website for it, and have all those "if you choose X you have to go to page Y" things applied automatically - and printout/save/send to the dealer/manufacturer on the press of the "if the information on this page looks allright than press 'OK' " button.
I might be looking at it too easy though. :-)
But they print it with latex ? Would using ink not be a lot easier ? (no, don't answer that, I know what you ment :-p )
I don't know. A smart factory would have robots handling the correct
pieces for the current car in the line, perhaps.
...I imagine they could also have made a website for it, [snip]
I might be looking at it too easy though. :-)
I was thinking of the printing box I mentioned earlier.
Alan,
How about the one the removes all context so people can't see why I sad >>>> what I said?
Well, as opposed to you, I think that people are smart enough to figure
out how find the parent post and look for themselves.
Not when you quite deliberately removed the "Reference" header entries...
And scrolling down is for you fully outof the question ofcourse.
Therefore, in your two replies to me where you snipped all context, you
have deliberately chosen to remove the references to make it harder for
people to fact-check you.
Yes, I deliberatily removed those references ...
... but not for the reason you claim to have read outof my mind.
Marion, 2025-06-25 23:27:This is one of his favourite tactics:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 22:21:27 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
When I have a good charger already, why should I expect a new phone to
come with it's own charger? I don't need that.
Hi Arno,
I'm being nice when I inform you that not all chargers are the same.
There's a concept of Wattage and Protocol (PD/QC) that you need to learn.
No, I don't need to learn that, I already know. Did I mention, that I am
in electronics too?
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/topic/electronics>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:35:49 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :There was no link to click on because he removed those links.
You're really quite the little coward aren't you?
You are really playing(?) the dumb shit right upto the hole, aren't you,
trying to make it sound as if looking at those message-headers is the *only* >> thing you are able to do.
I wills support anyone who makes a logically sensible statement, no matter what I think of that person's prior statements, since I take each Usenet
post on its own merits. In this case, I fully agree with Rudy's comments.
A classic game the Apple trolls like Alan Baker performs is they claim all sorts of nefarious purposes for what amounts to regular Usenet snipping.
Apple trolls like Alan Baker are so incredibly incompetent, that they can't even scroll back to the Usenet record to see what they themselves said.
Alan Baker has probably *never* in his entire life ever added an iota of added value to any thread topic - & in this case - he's proving the point.
Alan thrives on a sadistic glee he gets by accusing you of nefarious snipping, when, in fact, snipping is a courtesy that we all do on Usenet.
It would kill Alan Baker to click on a link or to scroll up to see what was said prior - which - in reality - is why he insists on you not snipping.
Alan,
The article does not support the contention that using wireless charging >>>> results in more heat than wired charging.
Period.
Ah, the famous "because I say so" argument. Well, if you want to play
dumb
that way than do not let me stop you.
If I'm so wrong, why don't you present a quote from that article that
supports the claim that wireless charging results in more heat than wired
charging?
I already quoted it, *and* told you it was in there. Just like the time
just before it, where you could not find any comparision. For that one I did the work and presented the related part to you on a silver platter, with it proving that I was not talking crap.. For this second time I expect you do put some work into it yourself. Its pretty plainly in there if you ask me.
As for the quote itself ? You only have to scroll down a bit to find my message containing it (or your own where you re-quoted it).
Your claim: you produce it.Oh, right!
You killfiled me...
...or so you said before...
...yet somehow you managed to reply to my post after that point!
Oohhh! You are *so* smart to have cought me out like that !
Congratulations !
Basic logic : if something happens that doesn't stroke with your perception of the facts/truth than its most likely your perception thats lacking information.
But I'll tell you, there is no support for that contention in that
article.
You already said that, and I told you that you are playing(?) dumb - and
that that is your prerogative.
I suggest you re-read that quote, and think about that someone else, not me, wrote it.
Also realize that I've not just told you that its in that webpage somewhere,
On 2025-06-20 09:47, Marion wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:26:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Think about this next question, Carlos:
Q: Why would anyone (pay a lot) for more than 64GB of internal storage? >>> A: You tell me.
I would not even consider a phone with only 64 GB.
Hi Carlos (from a kinder, gentler me, but still the logically sensible me)
May I ask when you say you wouldn't consider a 64GB phone if that phone had an sd slot or not as it makes an astoundingly huge difference which it is.
I want more storage space, and I do not consider storage in a card as equivalent. I consider it as a hack.
For instance, my WhatsApp storage is several gigabytes. A lot of
storage. And can not go into a card. Ok, it can be done, but at the cost
of making it slower and less reliable.
Therefore, in your two replies to me where you snipped all context, you
have deliberately chosen to remove the references to make it harder for
people to fact-check you.
Yes, I deliberatily removed those references ...
... but not for the reason you claim to have read outof my mind.
So what WAS your reason?
Carlos,
I don't know. A smart factory would have robots handling the correct
pieces for the current car in the line, perhaps.
Shucks, I didn't even think of that ... Somehow I still considered the customisations to be needing manual labour.
...I imagine they could also have made a website for it, [snip]
I might be looking at it too easy though. :-)
I was thinking of the printing box I mentioned earlier.
I'm not sure what you are referring to there, as I can't seem to find the term "printing box" back in your previous posts.
Though when you did mention printing I was thinking you ment a dead-tree version. Hence my website suggestion.
Customization has become easier and cheaper. I just remembered apiece about a box that would print a book and bind it on the spot, as
Also realize that I've not just told you that its in that webpage
somewhere,
Your claim: you produce it.
The article doesn't even mention wireless charging let alone the
differences between it and wired charging.
I'm not sure what you are referring to there, as I can't seem to find the
term "printing box" back in your previous posts.
Though when you did mention printing I was thinking you ment a dead-tree
version. Hence my website suggestion.
To this:
Customization has become easier and cheaper. I just remembered a pieceabout a box that would print a book and bind it on the spot, as you
waited. So that you could buy any "out of print" book
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:57:23 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Unless... they are like Apple owners... all of whom must live in the slums. ---
Note: The use of the slums is to make a point that is rather poignant.
The Apple owner is taught to fear everyone, including family & friends.
It's the Apple way of doing things. All decisions are based on fear alone.
Marion,LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOL!
I will always agree with anyone who says something sensible and
logical. No matter who that person is, nor what they may have
said in the past.
Yeah, you have claimed that quite a number of times now. Funny that, the more someone claimes to be something the less likely he actually is.
Its basic logic: As if he *is* than we would see it for ourselves and he would need to keep telling us.
To his credit, Rudy understood what an analogy is and what it
does.
Neither Alan nor Carlos understands the concept of an analogy.
Oh, they do. Just like you do. But my own experiences with both you and Alan tell me that you both will refuse to respond or even deny it when the message it conveys doesn't suit you.
Carlos,
I'm not sure what you are referring to there, as I can't seem to find the >>> term "printing box" back in your previous posts.
Though when you did mention printing I was thinking you ment a dead-tree >>> version. Hence my website suggestion.
To this:
Customization has become easier and cheaper. I just remembered a pieceabout a box that would print a book and bind it on the spot, as you
waited. So that you could buy any "out of print" book
Yep, I missed that when I was looking for it. Sorry.
But in dat case I was responding to that creating of a dead-tree book. I couldn't, and still can't, imagine when "they did not customize the manual book" it would get any better by printing the same.
And yes, I read about such a machine too, and they presented it as if it would be in the style of vending machine.
On 2025-06-26 17:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-26 01:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
This isn't about whether someone wants to use these features, or
whether
they're important to a specific user. It's about the objective fact
of what
the physical hardware allows the device to do.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the capability to
tow a
trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even if someone never tows a
trailer,
the car with the hitch still possesses that extra capability that
the other
one lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the inherent >>>> functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car when
reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive damages. So, it
makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
What's ironic here is that there are essentially no trucks sold today
that actually have a hitch.
The have a receiver that the buyer can use to ADD the actual hitch,
and those hitches can be of multiple types.
Just like you can use the USB port of a smartphone for multiple purposes.
:-
Yes, that's nice. I was rather thinking of normal cars that can tow a caravan. Normal cars don't come with those receivers. I don't know if
they can be installed.
On 2025-06-27 08:57, Arno Welzel wrote:
Marion, 2025-06-26 17:51:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Writing again the quoting you removed:
]
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to onewith it.
(all else being equal)
Carlos,
I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.
There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.
Correct.
But that's mostly irrelevant, since there are many people out there who
just don't need these things.
If *all* people would *need* an aux jack in a smartphone, they would
never buy devices without it. But this is not the case - iPhones are
still sold in big numbers as well as many Android phones without an aux
jack.
It seems, people are fine with inferior phones. Since the don't need the
superior functions. Similar to the fact, that not everybody needs a big
station wagon even if that is superior to the small car and can do
things, you can't do with the small car.
Because it is a matter of choice, people choose whatever is best for
their use case.
For example, a small car is useful in European busy cities, can be
parked in small spaces, while a big car is impossible. May be impossible
to maneuver inside some old parking lots! :-D
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a device.
Also realize that I've not just told you that its in that webpage
somewhere,
Your claim: you produce it.
As I have mentioned a few times now, I already did. You only have to
read a
few lines. You can ofcourse refuse to do so, but that doesn't change
anything.
And you are simply lying.
Alan,
Therefore, in your two replies to me where you snipped all context, you >>>> have deliberately chosen to remove the references to make it harder for >>>> people to fact-check you.
Yes, I deliberatily removed those references ...
... but not for the reason you claim to have read outof my mind.
So what WAS your reason?
:-) You should have thought about asking that BEFORE throwing a wild accusation.
The manual I refer to is a printed book. I mean, I got with the car a
printed book of instructions. When I seek how to do something, I have I to find the page that has the correct paragraph for the actual hardware
have in the car.
Instead, I propose they should print a book with the actual options, and
not the options I don't have installed.
Say, look in the book how to check the oil, and then read that the stick
can be front, rear, left, right, or not exist, depending on what motor version I have installed. It was so bad, that I would go to the garage and ask them to explain how to activate the wipers or something. Some features
I found out about them a year or two later.
Alan,
Also realize that I've not just told you that its in that webpage
somewhere,
Your claim: you produce it.
As I have mentioned a few times now, I already did. You only have to read a few lines. You can ofcourse refuse to do so, but that doesn't change anything.
Oh, the coward's going to use that as an excuse for not giving a reason!
Alan,And now you're deflecting.
Oh, the coward's going to use that as an excuse for not giving a reason!
Claims the liar who claims not to be able to read and interpret four quoted lines.
And that not once, but *twice*.
Alan,What "important stuff" was that? Oh! You haven't removed the references
Also realize that I've not just told you that its in that webpage
somewhere,
Your claim: you produce it.
As I have mentioned a few times now, I already did. You only have to
read a
few lines. You can ofcourse refuse to do so, but that doesn't change
anything.
And you are simply lying.
Ofcourse I am. There's simply no other explanation.
... oh, wait.
Also, the kid who complains about me leaving important stuff out when I
quote something is caught doing the very same thing. Why am I not
surprised ?
The article doesn't even mention wireless charging let alone the
differences between it and wired charging.
On 2025-06-27 00:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-26 17:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-26 01:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
This isn't about whether someone wants to use these
features, or whether they're important to a specific user.
It's about the objective fact of what the physical hardware
allows the device to do.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the
capability to tow a trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even
if someone never tows a trailer, the car with the hitch
still possesses that extra capability that the other one
lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the
inherent functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car
when reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive
damages. So, it makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
What's ironic here is that there are essentially no trucks sold
today that actually have a hitch.
The have a receiver that the buyer can use to ADD the actual
hitch, and those hitches can be of multiple types.
Just like you can use the USB port of a smartphone for multiple
purposes.
:-
Yes, that's nice. I was rather thinking of normal cars that can
tow a caravan. Normal cars don't come with those receivers. I
don't know if they can be installed.
They can be...
It very much depends on demand for a particular vehicle and how
heavy a trailer you want to tow.
To my shock, even my BMW 135i (the one that Arlen insists I don't
have 🙂) has a receiver you can get for it:
<https://www.curtmfg.com/part/11184>
On 2025-06-27 18:48, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-27 00:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-26 17:34, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-26 01:51, Carlos E.R. wrote:
This isn't about whether someone wants to use these
features, or whether they're important to a specific user.
It's about the objective fact of what the physical hardware
allows the device to do.
Think of it like a car. A car with a tow hitch has the
capability to tow a trailer. A car without one doesn't. Even
if someone never tows a trailer, the car with the hitch
still possesses that extra capability that the other one
lacks. It's not about whether they use it, but whether the
inherent functionality is present.
A tow hitch has the capability to damage greatly another car
when reversing in a parking, and you have to pay expensive
damages. So, it makes parking more difficult and dangerous.
What's ironic here is that there are essentially no trucks sold
today that actually have a hitch.
The have a receiver that the buyer can use to ADD the actual
hitch, and those hitches can be of multiple types.
Just like you can use the USB port of a smartphone for multiple
purposes.
:-
Yes, that's nice. I was rather thinking of normal cars that can
tow a caravan. Normal cars don't come with those receivers. I
don't know if they can be installed.
They can be...
It very much depends on demand for a particular vehicle and how
heavy a trailer you want to tow.
To my shock, even my BMW 135i (the one that Arlen insists I don't
have 🙂) has a receiver you can get for it:
<https://www.curtmfg.com/part/11184>
Interesting. Maybe modern cars come prepared, just in case.
Here, with the normal B license, we can only tow 750Kg or less. Or, more weight, as long as the total car + tow don't exceed 3500Kg. To tow more,I'm not sure what the limit here in BC is, but I tow my racing car...
we need another license.
Also, the kid who complains about me leaving important stuff out when I
quote something is caught doing the very same thing. Why am I not
surprised ?
What "important stuff" was that? Oh! You haven't removed the references
links this time!
What was it someone shortly ago said to me ? That whomever claims has to prove it ? So, get on it.
Kiddo, even the URL mentions wireless charging. Claiming that you are
too dumb to find either doesn't do you any favours.'
Since you're claiming "the URL mentions wireless charging", why don't you just provide it again?
Tell you what... ...I'll do it:
<https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/146275/mobile-myth-does-fast-charging-ruin-your-phone-battery>
Oh, the coward's going to use that as an excuse for not giving a reason!
Claims the liar who claims not to be able to read and interpret four
quoted
lines.
And that not once, but *twice*.
And now you're deflecting.
You said there was a reason for you to remove the "References:" header:
Why did you remove the "References:" header when you made the post that started this new thread?
Alan,The order was I asked, you didn't tell me, and didn't explain why, and
Oh, the coward's going to use that as an excuse for not giving a reason! >>>Claims the liar who claims not to be able to read and interpret four
quoted
lines.
And that not once, but *twice*.
And now you're deflecting.
Nope, I'm calling you a liar, plain and simple. And from that you lost a
few privileges. Like me freely answering your questions.
You said there was a reason for you to remove the "References:" header:
Yes, I did.
Why did you remove the "References:" header when you made the post that
started this new thread?
And I told you I wasn't going to tell you that *and* explained why
(something I did not even owe you). Was that /also/ to hard for you to read/understand ?
Alan,
Also, the kid who complains about me leaving important stuff out when I
quote something is caught doing the very same thing. Why am I not
surprised ?
What "important stuff" was that? Oh! You haven't removed the references
links this time!
:-) Or should I say: Bingo!
What was it someone shortly ago said to me ? That whomever claims has to >> prove it ? So, get on it.
Kiddo, even the URL mentions wireless charging. Claiming that you are
too dumb to find either doesn't do you any favours.'
Since you're claiming "the URL mentions wireless charging", why don't you
just provide it again?
Tell you what... ...I'll do it:
<https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/146275/mobile-myth-does-fast-charging-ruin-your-phone-battery>
:-) Yep, playing dumb again.
Just one question : what did I quote outof it ?
Also, that URL doesn't seem to mention wireless charging, as you yourself mentioned in the above. But you still think that thats the URL I spoke
about ?
On 2025-06-27 09:52, Your Name wrote:[...]
On 2025-06-27 06:57:23 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations
with my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's
normality.
"Normality" is not having a mobile phone at all and actually going
to the bank branch to do your banking. :-p
Not here.
To go to the bank, we have to request an appointment in advance, using
the computer (or a phone call - good luck with that).
Going to the bank is being actively discouraged.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:09:51 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :[...]
Yep - and these are available and not very expensive. Buy once, use for
many years when switching devices.
You're missing the point.
While I must have dozens of QC/PD high-wattage chargers, that's not the
point that I can "buy" any charger that I want to buy, ARno.
The point is Apple lied to people about being "green" and by saying they
had all the chargers they needed because the fact is they likely did not.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:14:54 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :[...]
I don't have 5-watt chargers. Mine have at least 65, some even more.
Most of us have entire boxes of 5-Watt chargers; did you throw yours away?
On 2025-06-27 09:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-27 06:57:23 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-26 18:00, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:42:27 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Assuming that, my question to you is what do the thieves
get?
The answer, certainly, is they got my phone. And, until I
cancel the SIM with the carrier, they can make calls.
But what else did they get besides the phone?
The bank account, for instance, including payments. My health
records.
Hi Carlos,
You can shoot me if I ever say anything that's not logically sensible, >>>> so I understand that for *you*, the thieves get a lot
of private sensitive data (if you don't wipe your phone remotely
and if they can access the device).
They get, oh, your bank account, your health records, your
contacts, your photos (with perhaps sensitive EXIF information
embedded), your Wi-Fi access point record, your browser web
histories, your passwords maybe even (if you keep them in a
plain text file), your ICE contact, maybe even your home
address, your map routing information - perhaps to your best friend's
home in addition to your home, perhaps all your social
media accounts, all your sms/mms messages, your upcoming
calendar appointments, etc.
But I didn't ask Andy what they get if they steal his, or your
phone.
I asked Andy what do they get if they steal *my* phone.
It is not about you, it is about the majority of the people.
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations
with my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's
normality.
"Normality" is not having a mobile phone at all and actually going
to the bank branch to do your banking. :-p
Not here.
To go to the bank, we have to request an appointment in advance, using
the computer (or a phone call - good luck with that).
Going to the bank is being actively discouraged.
Most of us have entire boxes of 5-Watt chargers; did you throw yours away?
Exactly.
Why did you remove the "References:" header when you made the post
that started this new thread?
And I told you I wasn't going to tell you that *and* explained why
(something I did not even owe you). Was that /also/ to hard for you to
read/understand ?
The order was I asked, you didn't tell me, and didn't explain why,
and still haven't.
Since you're claiming "the URL mentions wireless charging", why don't
you just provide it again?
Tell you what... ...I'll do it:
<https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/146275/mobile-myth-does-fast-charging-ruin-your-phone-battery>
:-) Yep, playing dumb again.
Just one question : what did I quote outof it ?
Also, that URL doesn't seem to mention wireless charging, as you yourself
mentioned in the above. But you still think that thats the URL I spoke
about ?
So show which one you WERE speaking of.
On 2025-06-27 00:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-27 08:57, Arno Welzel wrote:
Marion, 2025-06-26 17:51:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:51:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Writing again the quoting you removed:Carlos,
]
So a phone w/o an aux jack is *always* an inferior phone to onewith it.
(all else being equal) >>>>
I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.
There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can do.
Correct.
But that's mostly irrelevant, since there are many people out there who
just don't need these things.
If *all* people would *need* an aux jack in a smartphone, they would
never buy devices without it. But this is not the case - iPhones are
still sold in big numbers as well as many Android phones without an aux
jack.
It seems, people are fine with inferior phones. Since the don't need the >>> superior functions. Similar to the fact, that not everybody needs a big
station wagon even if that is superior to the small car and can do
things, you can't do with the small car.
Because it is a matter of choice, people choose whatever is best for
their use case.
For example, a small car is useful in European busy cities, can be
parked in small spaces, while a big car is impossible. May be
impossible to maneuver inside some old parking lots! :-D
But any 2-door car is always "inferior" to a car with 4 doors!
😜
On 2025-06-27 01:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
A "correct charger" for any device is one which will charge it in a
manner which satisfies the needs of the owner.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a device.
As long as you get the point that having a "charger" but not realizing its output, is EXACTLY what Apple & Google & Samsung are relying on for profit.
They tell the customer "You have plenty of chargers", but they don't
explain that having a box full of 5-Watt bricks is worthless.
If the correct charger isn't included, in the box, then the customer needs
to purchase the "correct" charger to take advantage of what they paid for.
Carlos E.R., 2025-06-27 10:09:
On 2025-06-27 09:52, Your Name wrote:[...]
On 2025-06-27 06:57:23 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations
with my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's
normality.
"Normality" is not having a mobile phone at all and actually going
to the bank branch to do your banking. :-p
Not here.
To go to the bank, we have to request an appointment in advance, using
the computer (or a phone call - good luck with that).
Going to the bank is being actively discouraged.
Same here - and some banks even don't have a branch office. You do
literally everything with them online or via video call or phone.
Alan,
Why did you remove the "References:" header when you made the post
that started this new thread?
And I told you I wasn't going to tell you that *and* explained why
(something I did not even owe you). Was that /also/ to hard for you to >>> read/understand ?
The order was I asked, you didn't tell me, and didn't explain why,
No, that wasn't the order. You started with accusing me of doing it for nefarious reasons.
*After* that you thought it would be a good idea to ask, and as it now looks *demand* what the reason was. (its remarkable how much you can check for its truth simply by scrolling back to previous posts)
Alan,
Since you're claiming "the URL mentions wireless charging", why don't
you just provide it again?
Tell you what... ...I'll do it:
<https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-phones/146275/mobile-myth-does-fast-charging-ruin-your-phone-battery>
:-) Yep, playing dumb again.
Just one question : what did I quote outof it ?
Also, that URL doesn't seem to mention wireless charging, as you yourself >>> mentioned in the above. But you still think that thats the URL I spoke
about ?
So show which one you WERE speaking of.
Nope. You claim, you do the work.
On 2025-06-27 18:50, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-27 01:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to
UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
A "correct charger" for any device is one which will charge it in a
manner which satisfies the needs of the owner.
Indeed.
For example, I may prefer a low power charger to charge the phone slowly during the night.
On 2025-06-28 05:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-27 18:50, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-27 01:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to
UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
A "correct charger" for any device is one which will charge it in a
manner which satisfies the needs of the owner.
Indeed.
For example, I may prefer a low power charger to charge the phone
slowly during the night.
I do like the fact that Apple has now added the option in iOS to stop charging at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or 100%.
I easily get through the day on 80% charge, so I just toss it on my
MagSafe stand charger (to use as my bedside clock at night) and in the morning it's always ready to go.
Just out of curiosity, I should find one of my 5 watt chargers and see
if it can do the same.
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has
100% of its original battery capacity.
:-)
Nope. At this point it is most definitely YOUR claim that there is another URL involved.
*After* that you thought it would be a good idea to ask, and as it now
looks *demand* what the reason was. (its remarkable how much you can
check for its truth simply by scrolling back to previous posts)
And yet you won't provide a reference to this alleged "previous post"
where an answer you claim can be found...
Alan,And if you could actually prove that by producing the post, you'd have
*After* that you thought it would be a good idea to ask, and as it now
looks *demand* what the reason was. (its remarkable how much you can
check for its truth simply by scrolling back to previous posts)
And yet you won't provide a reference to this alleged "previous post"
where an answer you claim can be found...
You can't even find your own posts back ? Even when you've been told how to do it ? Yep, you *are* (playing?) dumb. :-)
Alan,
Nope. At this point it is most definitely YOUR claim that there is another >> URL involved.
[quote=you]
Since you're claiming "the URL mentions wireless charging", why don't
you just provide it again?
Tell you what... ...I'll do it:
[/quote]
Remember that ? And you followed that up with a random URL, not even
coming *near* what you posted yourself - just so you can play your "I'm to dumb and can't find it, so now you have to do it for me" game again.
Thats a no-go I'm afraid.
I could ask you a question which answer would steer you in the right direction, or even give you a hint (or even a few), but alas, I'm afraidAlways excuses not to actually put up anything for your claims.
that you lost those privileges too.
On 2025-06-28 19:54, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-28 05:44, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-27 18:50, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-27 01:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to
UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
A "correct charger" for any device is one which will charge it in a
manner which satisfies the needs of the owner.
Indeed.
For example, I may prefer a low power charger to charge the phone
slowly during the night.
I do like the fact that Apple has now added the option in iOS to stop
charging at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, or 100%.
I easily get through the day on 80% charge, so I just toss it on my
MagSafe stand charger (to use as my bedside clock at night) and in the
morning it's always ready to go.
Just out of curiosity, I should find one of my 5 watt chargers and see
if it can do the same.
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has
100% of its original battery capacity.
:-)
My two phones, when charging overnight, have changed their methodology.
First they charged during the night to 80%, stopped there, and then
charged fully (and fast) just in time for the wakeup alarm. This will
not work with a slow charger.
Now they charge to 80% and stay there. But they go to 100% some random
days. Can be disabled.
Thus one of the phones I leave permanently on the charger, knowing that
it will limit itself to 80%. It is not actually 24 hours, but on a power strip with the computer room lamps.
On 2025-06-27 10:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a device. >>
As long as you get the point that having a "charger" but not realizing its >> output, is EXACTLY what Apple & Google & Samsung are relying on for profit. >>
They tell the customer "You have plenty of chargers", but they don't
explain that having a box full of 5-Watt bricks is worthless.
If the correct charger isn't included, in the box, then the customer needs >> to purchase the "correct" charger to take advantage of what they paid for.
No. We already have the correct charger, it is the same one we used
with the previous phone. Yes, the last three phones I bought came with exactly the same charger.
Not including the charger with the phone makes the phone cheaper.
The buyer saves money.
And if he does want a charger, he can buy that separately, from the
same brand, or a different one. He gained choice.
...
On 2025-06-28 12:42:59 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-27 10:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to
UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
As long as you get the point that having a "charger" but not
realizing its
output, is EXACTLY what Apple & Google & Samsung are relying on for
profit.
They tell the customer "You have plenty of chargers", but they don't
explain that having a box full of 5-Watt bricks is worthless.
If the correct charger isn't included, in the box, then the customer
needs
to purchase the "correct" charger to take advantage of what they paid
for.
No. We already have the correct charger, it is the same one we used
with the previous phone. Yes, the last three phones I bought came with
exactly the same charger.
Not including the charger with the phone makes the phone cheaper.
Cheaper for the manufacturer, yes.
The buyer saves money.
Nope, because the price of the phone has remained the same despite no
longer including the charger (nor an audio jack, nor stickers in Apple's case).
Removing the charger had nothing to do with making the phone cheaper for
the customer. Nor was it really anything to do with the "green" excuse,
even though it somewhat appeased the e-waste whiners - if that was
actually the reason, then the manufacturers would stop releasing a new, slightly tweaked, model every year for fools with more money than sense
to rush out and upgrade to.
The real reason was mainly just extra profit for the manufacturer's
pockets.
And if he does want a charger, he can buy that separately, from the
same brand, or a different one. He gained choice.
...
Except you have to get the correct charger. The "wrong" charger
(especially el cheapo ones) can, and have, cause phones to be damaged or catch fire.
The manufacturer should always include a correct charger for their device.
On 2025-06-27 22:31, Arno Welzel wrote:
Carlos E.R., 2025-06-27 10:09:
On 2025-06-27 09:52, Your Name wrote:[...]
On 2025-06-27 06:57:23 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
For instance, without a mobile phone I can not access operations
with my computer on the bank and several other sites. That's
normality.
"Normality" is not having a mobile phone at all and actually going
to the bank branch to do your banking. :-p
Not here.
To go to the bank, we have to request an appointment in advance, using
the computer (or a phone call - good luck with that).
Going to the bank is being actively discouraged.
Same here - and some banks even don't have a branch office. You do
literally everything with them online or via video call or phone.
Indeed.
On 2025-06-28 12:42:59 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-27 10:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to
UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
As long as you get the point that having a "charger" but not
realizing its
output, is EXACTLY what Apple & Google & Samsung are relying on for
profit.
They tell the customer "You have plenty of chargers", but they don't
explain that having a box full of 5-Watt bricks is worthless.
If the correct charger isn't included, in the box, then the customer
needs
to purchase the "correct" charger to take advantage of what they paid
for.
No. We already have the correct charger, it is the same one we used
with the previous phone. Yes, the last three phones I bought came with
exactly the same charger.
Not including the charger with the phone makes the phone cheaper.
Cheaper for the manufacturer, yes.
Why? Why must the consumer pay for a charge he or she may not require?And if he does want a charger, he can buy that separately, from the
same brand, or a different one. He gained choice.
...
Except you have to get the correct charger. The "wrong" charger
(especially el cheapo ones) can, and have, cause phones to be damaged or catch fire.
The manufacturer should always include a correct charger for their device.
On 2025-06-28 23:48, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 12:42:59 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-27 10:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to UNDERSTAND >>>> the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a device. >>>>
As long as you get the point that having a "charger" but not realizing >>>> its output, is EXACTLY what Apple & Google & Samsung are relying on for >>>> profit.
They tell the customer "You have plenty of chargers", but they don't
explain that having a box full of 5-Watt bricks is worthless.
If the correct charger isn't included, in the box, then the customer
needs to purchase the "correct" charger to take advantage of what they >>>> paid for.
No. We already have the correct charger, it is the same one we used
with the previous phone. Yes, the last three phones I bought came with
exactly the same charger.
Not including the charger with the phone makes the phone cheaper.
Cheaper for the manufacturer, yes.
The buyer saves money.
Nope, because the price of the phone has remained the same despite no
longer including the charger (nor an audio jack, nor stickers in
Apple's case).
You have no proof of this. You would have to compare the prices of the
same model with and without charger.
The manufacturer has incentives for making the phone cheaper for the customer, which is being cheaper than the competition and selling more phones.
Removing the charger had nothing to do with making the phone cheaper
for the customer. Nor was it really anything to do with the "green"
excuse, even though it somewhat appeased the e-waste whiners - if that
was actually the reason, then the manufacturers would stop releasing a
new, slightly tweaked, model every year for fools with more money than
sense to rush out and upgrade to.
The real reason was mainly just extra profit for the manufacturer's pockets. >>
And if he does want a charger, he can buy that separately, from the
same brand, or a different one. He gained choice.
...
Except you have to get the correct charger. The "wrong" charger
(especially el cheapo ones) can, and have, cause phones to be damaged
or catch fire.
There are many correct chargers sold by reputable dealers.
The manufacturer should always include a correct charger for their device.
I disagree. And my phones came all with a charger. I don't use them.
On 2025-06-28 22:40:22 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-28 23:48, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-06-28 12:42:59 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-27 10:40, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:23:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, the phone came with a very fast
charger. It has a name, but I have forgotten it.
Hi Carlos,
It's EXTREMELY IMPORTANT in the context of this discussion, to
UNDERSTAND
the difference between any old charger & the correct charger for a
device.
As long as you get the point that having a "charger" but not
realizing its output, is EXACTLY what Apple & Google & Samsung are
relying on for profit.
They tell the customer "You have plenty of chargers", but they don't >>>>> explain that having a box full of 5-Watt bricks is worthless.
If the correct charger isn't included, in the box, then the
customer needs to purchase the "correct" charger to take advantage
of what they paid for.
No. We already have the correct charger, it is the same one we used
with the previous phone. Yes, the last three phones I bought came
with exactly the same charger.
Not including the charger with the phone makes the phone cheaper.
Cheaper for the manufacturer, yes.
The buyer saves money.
Nope, because the price of the phone has remained the same despite no
longer including the charger (nor an audio jack, nor stickers in
Apple's case).
You have no proof of this. You would have to compare the prices of the
same model with and without charger.
Compare the near-identical iPhone or Samsung phone releases with and
without the charger and the prices are basically the same. The cost of
the charger (even at manufacturer's bulk purchase rates) wouldn't be the
same as the cost of the minor tweaks between the two models.
On 2025-06-28 12:42:59 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:[...]
The buyer saves money.
Nope, because the price of the phone has remained the same despite no
longer including the charger (nor an audio jack, nor stickers in
Apple's case).
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has
100% of its original battery capacity.
The main point on the loss of portable storage, the removal of the aux
jack, and the removal of the correct battery charger is that Apple starts
all these decidedly customer unfriendly actions & the others follow.
Disclaimer: I don't use any Apple devices except an iPhone SE which was
given to me by my employer. Personally I prefer Android devices and x86
based laptops and PCs for my work.
Well - seems other manufacturers see some of Apples decisions as
important.
Apple only innovates in "courageous" removal of basic functionality.
In fact, Apple is really good at removing functionality from a phone.
a. The iPhone starts out dumb
b. And only gets dumber over time
I don't see any proof of that. iPhones never had an internal SD card
slot anyway, so removing the more than 100 year old aux jack was the
only removal of basic functionality there.
On the other hand they added
a pretty useful 3D scanner for face unlock - a feature you still can't
find in Android phones.
The "face unlock" provided with some Android
phones is a joke since only the two dimensional *picture* of the owner
is enough.
Unfortunately, Samsung closely follows Apple's lead.
I'm not sure about Google's Pixel as I don't keep up on it.
Google Pixel also removed the aux jack - even Fairphone did this,
starting with the Fairphone 4. And Fairphone is defnitely not a company
which wants to sell customers a new phone every year.
BTW, I used to wire the 68701 and program the EEPROM, mentally, in hex.
I published my first software at the age of 16 when 8-bit home computers
like the VIC-20, C64 or Atari 400/800 XL were still a thing: <https://arnowelzel.de/en/about-me/my-computer-story>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 22:37:04 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Most of us have entire boxes of 5-Watt chargers; did you throw yours away? >>Exactly.
The main point on the loss of portable storage, the removal of the aux
jack, and the removal of the correct battery charger is that Apple starts
all these decidedly customer unfriendly actions & the others follow.
Apple only innovates in "courageous" removal of basic functionality.
In fact, Apple is really good at removing functionality from a phone.
a. The iPhone starts out dumb
b. And only gets dumber over time
Unfortunately, Samsung closely follows Apple's lead.
I'm not sure about Google's Pixel as I don't keep up on it.
BTW, I used to wire the 68701 and program the EEPROM, mentally, in hex.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:23:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :[...]
Google Pixel also removed the aux jack - even Fairphone did this,
starting with the Fairphone 4. And Fairphone is defnitely not a company
which wants to sell customers a new phone every year.
There is only one reason to remove the aux jack.
And that reason is not that it has been working fine for a very long time.
You can't even find your own posts back ? Even when you've been told
how to do it ? Yep, you *are* (playing?) dumb. :-)
And if you could actually prove that by producing the post, you'd have
done it by now.
But all you can do is yap.
I remember that you told me there was a URL with text you claim was quoted and that it had "wireless" right in the text of the URL
Alan,
I remember that you told me there was a URL with text you claim was quoted >> and that it had "wireless" right in the text of the URL
Ah yes, its my claim, and now I have to prove it - even though you reposted that quote, and bitterly complained when I did not re-re-post it.
And kiddo, if you want me to prove everything, how come you are not doing that yourself - like actually quoting where you got that "I remember that
you told me" from ?
Yeah, its going to be fun to have you prove to me (and us) that you are not as near as bad at finding (your own) claims back as you tried to make me
(and us) believe. :-)
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:23:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The main point on the loss of portable storage, the removal of the aux
jack, and the removal of the correct battery charger is that Apple starts >>> all these decidedly customer unfriendly actions & the others follow.
Disclaimer: I don't use any Apple devices except an iPhone SE which was
given to me by my employer. Personally I prefer Android devices and x86
based laptops and PCs for my work.
Well - seems other manufacturers see some of Apples decisions as
important.
Apple is, like other monopolies, all about MARKETING, which means Apple
takes the "courageous" risk of removing functionality to gauge whether
people will actually be forced to buy it back - or - drop Apple.
Since people bought back what Marketing had removed (much of it from
Apple), Apple's profits increased. So Marketing was right after all.
People *are* that dumb.
Once Samsung found out that this marketing gimmick worked, Samsung did it too; but Apple was the leader in testing out how dumb people really are.
What's really happening is Apple is testing out the marketing tricks.
And, if they work - then companies like Samsung are glad to follow later.
The customer always loses; but Apple/Samsung garner bigger profits.
Apple only innovates in "courageous" removal of basic functionality.
In fact, Apple is really good at removing functionality from a phone.
a. The iPhone starts out dumb
b. And only gets dumber over time
I don't see any proof of that. iPhones never had an internal SD card
slot anyway, so removing the more than 100 year old aux jack was the
only removal of basic functionality there.
Hi Arno,
The fact that your argument has to be so absurd means you have no idea why Apple "courageously" removed the most common basic piece of hardware.
I've been hearing that same ridiculously absurd argument from Apple trolls for years that Apple has to remove anything that has been working for a while.
It's just absurd your argument.
The way you think, is easily shown to be unfathomably senseless.
Completely illogical.
The fact you think something that works has to be removed just because it
has been working for a long time - is a problem - as it means you didn't
even think before you parroted what someone (Apple?) told you to parrot.
On the other hand they added
a pretty useful 3D scanner for face unlock - a feature you still can't
find in Android phones.
It's interesting how much you love mere marketing gimmicks.
The "face unlock" provided with some Android
phones is a joke since only the two dimensional *picture* of the owner
is enough.
The fact you think Apple's gimmick is better than Android's gimmick again tells me that you don't think logically. Someone told you how to think.
Apple perhaps?
Unfortunately, Samsung closely follows Apple's lead.
I'm not sure about Google's Pixel as I don't keep up on it.
Google Pixel also removed the aux jack - even Fairphone did this,
starting with the Fairphone 4. And Fairphone is defnitely not a company
which wants to sell customers a new phone every year.
There is only one reason to remove the aux jack.
And that reason is not that it has been working fine for a very long time.
BTW, I used to wire the 68701 and program the EEPROM, mentally, in hex.
I published my first software at the age of 16 when 8-bit home computers
like the VIC-20, C64 or Atari 400/800 XL were still a thing:
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/about-me/my-computer-story>
My first official peer-reviewed paper was published when I was about 20.
But I wasn't the principle author.
Your Name, 2025-06-28 23:48:
On 2025-06-28 12:42:59 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:[...]
The buyer saves money.
Nope, because the price of the phone has remained the same despite no
longer including the charger (nor an audio jack, nor stickers in
Apple's case).
If the price really remained the *same* - then the phones got cheaper
due to inflation over time.
Jesus. Why don't you two get a room and masturbate in private?
HERE is the link both of you are arguing about:
<https://www.ifixit.com/News/94409/wireless-charging-trading-efficiency-for-convenience>
Yes, it has wireless right in the URL.
It also concludes - at the very bottom of the article - that wireless charging DOES cause more heat which COULD result in reduced battery life.
Read the ENTIRE page. It is quite well-done.
We now return you to the regular childish bickering, already in progress.
On 6/29/2025 7:25 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Alan,
I remember that you told me there was a URL with text you claim was
quoted
and that it had "wireless" right in the text of the URL
Ah yes, its my claim, and now I have to prove it - even though you
reposted
that quote, and bitterly complained when I did not re-re-post it.
And kiddo, if you want me to prove everything, how come you are not doing
that yourself - like actually quoting where you got that "I remember that
you told me" from ?
Yeah, its going to be fun to have you prove to me (and us) that you
are not
as near as bad at finding (your own) claims back as you tried to make me
(and us) believe. :-)
Jesus. Why don't you two get a room and masturbate in private?
HERE is the link both of you are arguing about:
<https://www.ifixit.com/News/94409/wireless-charging-trading-efficiency- for-convenience>
Yes, it has wireless right in the URL. It also concludes - at the very bottom of the article - that wireless charging DOES cause more heat
which COULD result in reduced battery life. Read the ENTIRE page. It
is quite well-done.
Also concludes that things get more inefficient unless the coil in the
phone is precisely aligned on the coil in the charger. And that the
Tesla charger is the worst charger they tested. Horribly inefficient.
Anyone who knows anything about physics already knows the conclusion here. Wired is THE most efficient way to charge anything AND it
creates less heat.
Quote:
With that said, our wired charge was the only test scenario where the
battery momentarily touched 30°C while all our wireless charging test scenarios saw the battery warming well above 30°C. You can expect to see reduced battery longevity in the case of the Tesla charger or any
situation where the charging coils are improperly aligned.
End Quote
We now return you to the regular childish bickering, already in progress.
On 2025-06-29 02:36, Marion wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:23:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
I published my first software at the age of 16 when 8-bit home computers >>> like the VIC-20, C64 or Atari 400/800 XL were still a thing:
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/about-me/my-computer-story>
My first official peer-reviewed paper was published when I was about 20.
But I wasn't the principle author.
Cite, please!
HERE is the link both of you are arguing about:
<https://www.ifixit.com/News/94409/wireless-charging-trading-efficiency-for-convenience>
Yes, it has wireless right in the URL.
Yes, thats indeed the URL - which I added just below where I quoted the a part outof it.
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has
100% of its original battery capacity.
My Google Pixel 6a is now over two years old and has around 95% of its original battery capacity - and I don't care at all about charging. It
gets charged whenever needed and I don't have any setting enabled to
stop at 80 or 90%.
Anyone who knows anything about physics already knows the conclusion
here.�� Wired is THE most efficient way to charge anything AND it
creates less heat.
Certainly.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:06:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has
100% of its original battery capacity.
My Google Pixel 6a is now over two years old and has around 95% of its
original battery capacity - and I don't care at all about charging. It
gets charged whenever needed and I don't have any setting enabled to
stop at 80 or 90%.
Arno brings up a good point about how wondrously high capacity most Android batteries are nowadays, where you charge Androids only when they need it.
Not only that, but if desired, they charge fully in just a couple of hours. Often using the correct fast charger that came with the device in the box.
Meanwhile, the poor Apple owners who paid two or three times the value of their device to Apple's profits is stuck charging the iPhone every night.
I published my first software at the age of 16 when 8-bit home computers >>>> like the VIC-20, C64 or Atari 400/800 XL were still a thing:
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/about-me/my-computer-story>
My first official peer-reviewed paper was published when I was about 20. >>> But I wasn't the principle author.
Cite, please!
LOL! This one will not happen :-D
Not a chance.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 19:04:49 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I published my first software at the age of 16 when 8-bit home computers >>>>> like the VIC-20, C64 or Atari 400/800 XL were still a thing:
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/about-me/my-computer-story>
My first official peer-reviewed paper was published when I was about 20. >>>> But I wasn't the principle author.
Cite, please!
LOL! This one will not happen :-D
Not a chance.
Heh heh heh...
It's interesting that the *adults* (like Arno) don't ask for a cite for everything we say we did when we were kids (where you'll notice I didn't
ask Arno to cite his comments as they're made in friendship, off the cuff).
There is only one reason to remove the aux jack.
And that reason is not that it has been working fine for a very long time.
Also read this: <https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/9836188988049-Audio-Jack-3-5mm>
"Fairphone 4 is already thick by industry standard because modular
design makes our phone bigger than average. Modularity allows users to
repair their phone easily and keep it for as long as possible. Including
the headphone jack would have made the phone longer and thicker. We also
know from consumer feedback that smaller dimensions are very important
for handling and ergonomics."
But I know, that you will say, that Fairphone is also just wants to make
a lot money and their offering of spare parts to be able to repair a
phone without expensive tools is just there to distract customers from
the real reasons:
<https://shop.fairphone.com/spare-parts>
Does anyone seriously believe Apple MARKTING was telling the truth?
On 2025-06-29 12:14, Marion wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:06:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has
100% of its original battery capacity.
My Google Pixel 6a is now over two years old and has around 95% of its
original battery capacity - and I don't care at all about charging. It
gets charged whenever needed and I don't have any setting enabled to
stop at 80 or 90%.
Arno brings up a good point about how wondrously high capacity most Android >> batteries are nowadays, where you charge Androids only when they need it.
Not only that, but if desired, they charge fully in just a couple of hours. >> Often using the correct fast charger that came with the device in the box. >>
Meanwhile, the poor Apple owners who paid two or three times the value of
their device to Apple's profits is stuck charging the iPhone every night.
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a> <https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16> <https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
Now...
...you were saying?
Alan, 2025-06-29 21:32:
On 2025-06-29 12:14, Marion wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:06:40 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :And now...
And my iPhone 16, which is now almost exactly 6 months old, still has >>>>> 100% of its original battery capacity.
My Google Pixel 6a is now over two years old and has around 95% of its >>>> original battery capacity - and I don't care at all about charging. It >>>> gets charged whenever needed and I don't have any setting enabled to
stop at 80 or 90%.
Arno brings up a good point about how wondrously high capacity most Android >>> batteries are nowadays, where you charge Androids only when they need it. >>>
Not only that, but if desired, they charge fully in just a couple of hours. >>> Often using the correct fast charger that came with the device in the box. >>>
Meanwhile, the poor Apple owners who paid two or three times the value of >>> their device to Apple's profits is stuck charging the iPhone every night. >>
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
Both phones use ARM based SoCs - but different operating systems and different software overall.
I usually get battery run times between 18 and 26 hours with my Pixel 6a
for my typical daily usage - which includes a lot of messaging and
e-mail, some web browsing, listening to music and internet radio and
using OSMAnd and the camera from time to time.
So any theoretical run time values are useless if not done by the *same* tester with the *exact* same test conditions.
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
Now...
...you were saying?
An iPhone 16 would not work for me and my typical use cases.
An iPhone 16 would not work for me and my typical use cases.
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a> <https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16> <https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
Now...
...you were saying?
:-)
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 19:04:49 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
I published my first software at the age of 16 when 8-bit home computers >>>>> like the VIC-20, C64 or Atari 400/800 XL were still a thing:
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/about-me/my-computer-story>
My first official peer-reviewed paper was published when I was about 20. >>>> But I wasn't the principle author.
Cite, please!
LOL! This one will not happen :-D
Not a chance.
Heh heh heh...
It's interesting that the *adults* (like Arno) don't ask for a cite for everything we say we did when we were kids (where you'll notice I didn't
ask Arno to cite his comments as they're made in friendship, off the cuff).
It's only you childish trolls who require proof of common accomplishments. The reason is you uneducated trolls have never published anything in your entire lives, Carlos.
You can't.
We covered this years and years ago, Carlos.
None of you trolls have any education past a high school diploma.
Along the same vein as your accusation just now...
Prove to me that you have at least a high-school diploma, Carlos.
Prove it!
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
Only when you post your true name and promise to use it permanently on
groups here.
As you hide your identity, you have no footing to ask me to prove what training I have. Which I do.
Interesting... insulting me just because we asked for a cite.
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:Click on the PC Magazine links.
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
On 2025-06-28 22:40:22 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:[...]
On 2025-06-28 23:48, Your Name wrote:
Except you have to get the correct charger. The "wrong" charger
(especially el cheapo ones) can, and have, cause phones to be damaged
or catch fire.
There are many correct chargers sold by reputable dealers.
Yes there are, there are also many incorrect chargers, but most
consumers don't actually know how to tell the difference.
On 2025-07-01 02:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:Click on the PC Magazine links.
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
Click the "MORE SPECS" to see the times.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 12:04:29 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Only when you post your true name and promise to use it permanently on
groups here.
As you hide your identity, you have no footing to ask me to prove what
training I have. Which I do.
Interesting... insulting me just because we asked for a cite.
C'mon Carlos,
You're being disingenuous. Just like all the Apple trolls always are.
You're clearly attempting a doxing Carlos.
That's highly unethical of you.
The very fact you believe that asking me to post my full name on the
Internet is just "asking for a cite" says a lot about you, Carlos.
Seriously.
Either apologize or stop it with this idiocy.
Asking me to post my full name on Usenet is not just "asking for a cite".
If you seriously think it is, then you have no business conversing with me.
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
On 2025-07-01 09:59:00 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:
And now...
...facts!
Phone         Battery size Run time Volume  Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh  12h:55m  5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh  17h:47m  4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
The PC Mag pages have the run time listed as "Battery Life (As Tested)"
in the "Specs" box just under the Pros and Cons near the top of the
review, as well as talked about in the specific battery section of each review.
On 2025-07-01 23:01, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-07-01 09:59:00 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:
And now...
...facts!
Phone         Battery size Run time Volume  Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh  12h:55m  5.88in^3 178g >>>>
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh  17h:47m  4.87in^3 170g >>>>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
The PC Mag pages have the run time listed as "Battery Life (As
Tested)" in the "Specs" box just under the Pros and Cons near the top
of the review, as well as talked about in the specific battery section
of each review.
I did not read the full text. I was trying to grep for the key word that
Alan had used (Run time).
On 2025-07-01 19:50, Alan wrote:
On 2025-07-01 02:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:Click on the PC Magazine links.
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
Click the "MORE SPECS" to see the times.
Ah, yes. Thanks.
LOL, this is ridiculous, use a button to hide/save just two lines? :-D
Unless you buy some el-cheapo, no-brand (Chinese?) charger, any
charger should be a correct charger. Perhaps if it's underpowered, it
doesn't charge quickly or not at all, but all brand chargers should
implement the USB power protocols, i.e. USB BC, USB PD, etc.. (See
for example <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Power>.)
Of course it's sensible to use a low power charger with something like
a smartwatch/activity-tracker and a (very) high power with something
like a laptop, but you should be able to swap those chargers without any
ill effect, i.e. the high power charger shouldn't blow up the smartwatch/activity-tracker and the low power charger should do nothing
bad to the laptop (other than not charging it).
Does anyone seriously believe what you say matters?
Asking me to post my full name on Usenet is not just "asking for a cite".
If you seriously think it is, then you have no business conversing with me.
I'm asking for your full true name because you asked me for my high
school diploma.
Highly unethical of you.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:57:34 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Does anyone seriously believe what you say matters?
Do you realize that I responded to your Fairphone claim with logic.
And since you can't understand sensible logic, you resorted to insults.
Why?
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 21:11:53 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Asking me to post my full name on Usenet is not just "asking for a cite". >>> If you seriously think it is, then you have no business conversing with me. >>I'm asking for your full true name because you asked me for my high
school diploma.
Highly unethical of you.
Either apologize or stop it with this idiocy.
On 1 Jul 2025 18:17:46 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :
Unless you buy some el-cheapo, no-brand (Chinese?) charger, any
charger should be a correct charger. Perhaps if it's underpowered, it
doesn't charge quickly or not at all, but all brand chargers should
implement the USB power protocols, i.e. USB BC, USB PD, etc.. (See
for example <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Power>.)
Of course it's sensible to use a low power charger with something like
a smartwatch/activity-tracker and a (very) high power with something
like a laptop, but you should be able to swap those chargers without any
ill effect, i.e. the high power charger shouldn't blow up the
smartwatch/activity-tracker and the low power charger should do nothing
bad to the laptop (other than not charging it).
Sometimes Frank is right but Frank is simply wrong in the case above.
I get anything I want for free from Amazon Vine, and as a result, I must
have dozens of chargers, and the fact is that they're different.
When you review chargers, you'll see that the specs are completely
different between them and when you review items that are being charged,
you find that what Frank said (and Arno said the same thing) is just wrong.
The fact is there are plenty of low-power devices (not smartphones though) which simply will not charge with a modern PD/QC USB-C charger.
They just won't.
That's just a fact.
Frank and others may be ignorant of that fact.
But it doesn't change that it's a fact.
Also, Frank is wrong on a few other counts, where some chargers are QC and some are PD and some are a combination and even others are PD and QC
advanced standards, etc. There's a mix.
To say that any charger will charge a phone is like saying any fuel will
run an engine, whether it be jet fuel, kerosene/diesel or gasoline.
That's just wrong.
The USA M35 series military 2-1/2 ton 6x6 cargo truck could run just as
well on almost any fuel, but you won't get the charging speeds you pay for
if you try to charge a $2000 phone with a $5 5-Watt 1Amp charging brick.
Those who claim otherwise are simply clueless how phones actually charge.
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:Comparing a Pixel 6a (2022), the lowest-end Google phone, to an iPhone
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
And now...
...facts!
Phone��������� Battery size� Run time� Volume�� Weight
Google Pixel 6a� 4,410 mAh�� 12h:55m�� 5.88in^3� 178g
Apple iPhone 16� 3,561 mAh�� 17h:47m�� 4.87in^3� 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a> <https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16> <https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
Now...
...you were saying?
:-)
On 7/1/2025 2:59 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-29 21:32, Alan wrote:Comparing a Pixel 6a (2022), the lowest-end Google phone, to an iPhone
And now...
...facts!
Phone Battery size Run time Volume Weight
Google Pixel 6a 4,410 mAh 12h:55m 5.88in^3 178g
Apple iPhone 16 3,561 mAh 17h:47m 4.87in^3 170g
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/google-pixel-6a>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_6a-11229.php>
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-iphone-16>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_16-13317.php>
I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?
16 (2024) is pretty ridiculous.
iPhone 16 run time: 6:21, browsing: 16:48, battery size: 3561mAH,
weight: 6.00 ounces
Pixel 9 run time: 6:48, browsing: 17:34, battery size: 4700mAH, weight:
6.98 ounces
So the iPhone has shorter run time and browsing time, but it's because
of the much lower capacity battery.
On 1 Jul 2025 18:17:46 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :
Unless you buy some el-cheapo, no-brand (Chinese?) charger, any
charger should be a correct charger. Perhaps if it's underpowered, it doesn't charge quickly or not at all, but all brand chargers should implement the USB power protocols, i.e. USB BC, USB PD, etc.. (See
for example <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Power>.)
Of course it's sensible to use a low power charger with something like
a smartwatch/activity-tracker and a (very) high power with something
like a laptop, but you should be able to swap those chargers without any ill effect, i.e. the high power charger shouldn't blow up the smartwatch/activity-tracker and the low power charger should do nothing
bad to the laptop (other than not charging it).
Sometimes Frank is right but Frank is simply wrong in the case above.
I get anything I want for free from Amazon Vine, and as a result, I must
have dozens of chargers, and the fact is that they're different.
When you review chargers, you'll see that the specs are completely
different between them and when you review items that are being charged,
you find that what Frank said (and Arno said the same thing) is just wrong.
The fact is there are plenty of low-power devices (not smartphones though) which simply will not charge with a modern PD/QC USB-C charger.
They just won't.
That's just a fact.
Frank and others may be ignorant of that fact.
But it doesn't change that it's a fact.
Also, Frank is wrong on a few other counts, where some chargers are QC and some are PD and some are a combination and even others are PD and QC
advanced standards, etc. There's a mix.
To say that any charger will charge a phone is like saying any fuel will
run an engine, whether it be jet fuel, kerosene/diesel or gasoline.
That's just wrong.
The USA M35 series military 2-1/2 ton 6x6 cargo truck could run just as
well on almost any fuel, but you won't get the charging speeds you pay for
if you try to charge a $2000 phone with a $5 5-Watt 1Amp charging brick.
Those who claim otherwise are simply clueless how phones actually charge.
every brand
name charger is a *correct* charger, because it implements the USB power protocols.
On 2 Jul 2025 12:21:53 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :
every brand
name charger is a *correct* charger, because it implements the USB power protocols.
I'm all about facts.
But, maybe I misunderstood you, and if I did, I apologize.
And, it seems clear you misunderstood me also. So let's fix this.
Starting over, let's stick with just the facts.
The fact is that every device will take a range of chargers and protocols (which everyone knows) but what most people absolutely do not know is that some USB-charged devices will not charge with some USB chargers. Period.
That's just a fact.
I didn't see any evidence that you understood that fact.
Nor did I see any evidence that Arno understood it.
While it sounds counterintuitive (since it's a USB charger) the problem is
in the wattage and in the protocol. And obviously, in the negotiation.
These are just facts.
If you understand those facts, then that's fine with me.
This all started with someone saying that any USB charger will work.
That's not correct.
[End repeat.]every brand
name charger is a *correct* charger, because it implements the USB power protocols.
I know of cases where USB-C devices will NOT charger with a smart charger.
It's documented in their instructions.
I also know that there is a MINIMUM required wattage specified as of June
20, 2025 for all phones that are sold in the EU.
Notice this phone requires as a minimum, a 10-Watt charger.
<https://epreol.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2339789>
While I have no idea what happens if you try to charge those phones with a lower-than minimum wattage charger, I do know the first phone I looked up
had a 10-watt minimum wattage. So a 5-Watt brick is well below the minimum.
In summary, there are two facts I know that most people do not know.
1. Many USB-charged devices will NOT charge with the newer chargers, and,
2. Every phone sold in the EU has a minimum "required" charging wattage.
As long as you and Arno are aware of those two facts, I'm fine.
every brand
name charger is a *correct* charger, because it implements the USB power >>> protocols.
I'm all about facts.
As many others have also said: No, you're not. Most of your 'facts'
aren't facts, but opinions, assumptions, etc.. But let's not go there
again.
I'm an extremely well educated scientist & engineer so it's
important that I tell you all my stated facts are aimed at
being 100% correct.
The fact is, you're wrong - and the proof of that is you can't
back it up. > You won't find even a single time where my stated
facts were wrong.(1)
The reason is what you disagree with are my assessments.
And that's fine.
But never say a fact I state is wrong, Frank.
Without backing it up with a cite because it doesn't happen(1).
If an actual fact I stated is wrong, in my entire history on Usenet,
I've always apologized and publicly corrected it
as my statements must be trusted to be 100% correct on the facts.
In decades of posting on Usenet, Frank...
Lolz! You have made a *mountain* of claims which you have not "backed up" - and when asked to do so you flatout ignored such requests.
Lolz! You have made a *mountain* of claims which you have not "backed
up" -
and when asked to do so you flatout ignored such requests.
Name just one, Rudy.
If you can't name even one, then you're the one who is
wrong. It's that simple.
Only fools disagree with facts; that's why they're fools.
Adults very often (almost always) disagree with assessment
of facts.
Here's a fact for you:
The iPhone does not come with an sd slot.
Here's an assessment of that fact:
The iPhone sucks.
It's clear you can't tell the difference,
but here's my assessment of you: You have no formal
education past high school, Rudy. It's why you write
what you write.
Meanwhile, I do have higher degrees.
Which is why you can't name a single fact I said that you claim is wrong.
Name just one, Rudy.
You mean the one by which you *told us all* that a smarthphone without an sd-card is inferior to one with ?
This is a fact.
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
Only a fool would call that fact wrong.
For you to call that fact wrong, means you're stupid.
Leave me alone Rudy. Just go away.
Your opinion about my facts being wrong is absurdly
meaningless.
You're too stupid to even try to have an adult conversation with.
Meanwhile, I do have higher degrees.
Marion,
I'm an extremely well educated scientist & engineer so it's
important that I tell you all my stated facts are aimed at
being 100% correct.
"aimed at" ? Sure. I can jump and aim for the moon. Though /just like you/, I always seem to fall short. :-)
The fact is, you're wrong - and the proof of that is you can't
back it up. > You won't find even a single time where my stated
facts were wrong.(1)
Lolz! You have made a *mountain* of claims which you have not "backed up" - and when asked to do so you flatout ignored such requests.
And nonwithstanding your own refusal you now again demand others to support theirs - and if that is not enough, you even have the gall to demand that your opponents explain/support *your* claims.
The reason is what you disagree with are my assessments.
And that's fine.
Thank you, we really where waiting for you, grand magus of throwing unsubstanciated claims around, to allow us to disagree with you. :-)
As for your "assessments" ? You have shown to be unable to even just /explain/ where you got them from.
But never say a fact I state is wrong, Frank.
Without backing it up with a cite because it doesn't happen(1).
I suggest you *never* claim that *anything* you say is "right" or "a fact" kiddo, not without backing it up yourself.
As you seem to be allergic to that your whole grand-standing about all your education and knowledge means exactly nothing to me, and likely to anyone else reading your posts.
Ah yes, I forgot : you demanded from Carlos that he proved his education to you. Did you ever prove you *alledged* education to him ? No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
As for that "it doesn't happen(1)" ? That sounds quite contrary to your caveat, being "I can make temporary errors".
Kiddo, your single most important "temporary" error is that you outsmart and know more than anyone here.
If an actual fact I stated is wrong, in my entire history on Usenet,
I've always apologized and publicly corrected it
Don't lie to us. Every time you've been told you made a mistake your response was to bluntly ignore it.
as my statements must be trusted to be 100% correct on the facts.
Lolz. As far as I can tell absolutily *nobody* here believes that what you claim to be facts comes even *near* to being such.
Kiddo, the manner in which you started this very subject shows us that you are quite dishonest. Besides you refusing, even when I asked, to specify what you where talking about I mean.
Bottom line ? Even with all your goal-post moving you have yet to win a single argument. And that for someone who claims to have a higher education and is quite knowledgable.
In decades of posting on Usenet, Frank...
For someone *that* old you should have become aware of what "a discussion" is. What you are doing (here) isn't even in the same galaxy.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Well, publishing my high school certificate (or my engineering
certificate) would be publishing private information like my complete
name, when he hides even his true name and changes it periodically.
So, why would I publish mine when he hides even his true name?
And then he started to insult me because I dared to ask for his true name.
I'm all about facts.
As many others have also said: No, you're not. Most of your 'facts'
aren't facts, but opinions, assumptions, etc.. But let's not go there
again.
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Carlos.
It's about whether that capability exists.
But never say a fact I state is wrong, Frank.
Without backing it up with a cite because it doesn't happen(1).
We have asked, repeatedly, for several cites that never happened. I've
lost track of them.
Ah yes, I forgot : you demanded from Carlos that he proved his education
to you. Did you ever prove you *alledged* education to him ? No, I
didn't
think so. Hypocrite.
Well, publishing my high school certificate (or my engineering
certificate) would be publishing private information like my complete
name, when he hides even his true name and changes it periodically.
So, why would I publish mine when he hides even his true name?
And then he started to insult me because I dared to ask for his true name.
People like you who can't separate fact from opinion couldn't
pass exams.
But... and this is where your lack of education shows, this is
also a fact:
Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with
it, all other things being equal.
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Carlos.
It's about whether that capability exists.
Neither you nor Rudy has the intellect to separate fact from
assessment.
Mostly because your "facts" are simply opinions.
This is a fact:
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card
slot simply can not do what the phone with an sd card in
that sd card slot can do.
Progressing toward adulthood, they can distinguish facts
from opinions.
None of you trolls, have progressed toward that adult milestone,
Chris.
It's not about whether you use the capability that exists.
It's about whether that capability exists.
The fact I have to explain fundamental logic to you
trolls, is sad.
Given your lack of education, I do not expect you to comprehend logic.
But now I understand why you claim my facts (aka opinions) are "wrong".
This is a fact:
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card
slot simply can not do what the phone with an sd card in
that sd card slot can do.
Like what and why would it be of any consequence ?
And mind you, if you come up with examples where your hinging point is "with an sd-card" and I can replace "sd-card" with "internal storage",
"thumbdrive" and/or "data-cable" than I will discard the example. Just so you know.
If you don't know what an sd card does by now, you never will.
On 3 Jul 2025 13:18:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :
[...]I'm all about facts.
As many others have also said: No, you're not. Most of your 'facts' aren't facts, but opinions, assumptions, etc.. But let's not go there again.
Frank,
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Carlos.
It's a fact that I'm not Carlos.
my facts are never wrong (1), and, if I ever accidentally
say a fact wrong, I correct it immediately
What an sd card does that cannot be fully replaced by any
method been stated so many times in this thread, expressly
at your request, in detail.
If you don't know what an sd card does by now, you never will.
As I said, and as you just proved for me, my facts are never
wrong (1), and, if I ever accidentally say a fact wrong,
my facts on Usenet are never wrong.
If all you have is a minor already corrected contextual slipup, you simply proved my point in spades, Frank, that my facts on Usenet are never wrong.
The main difference here, Frank, is you're stupid.
I'm not.
Arlen,
As I said, and as you just proved for me, my facts are never
wrong (1), and, if I ever accidentally say a fact wrong,
Its rather humorous that you, in the same sentence, claim that your facts
are never wrong *and* that they sometimes are.
1984's double speak ? Some kind of Schr�dinger's cat perhaps ?
my facts on Usenet are never wrong.
... except when they are.
As to your 'facts': In your previous response you gave several
examples of your false/imposible premise resulting in a false
'conclusion' (which you call a 'fact').
... and than I named a few reasons for the "con" column.
When I state a fact unequivocally, I already know it to be a fact.
Which is why my facts are never wrong(1).
It's you ignorant uneducated trolls who dispute those facts.
Such as "no iPhone ever sold came with the sd card slot".
This is a fact:
The iPhone doesn't have an sd slot.
This is an opinion:
The reason is because Apple wants you to buy the functionality
back.
You strange completely ignorant uneducated trolls, Frank Slootweg
included,
have never once in your entire lives ever stopped to ponder what the fundamental difference is between a fact and an opinion, Rudy.
This is a fact:
The iPhone doesn't have an sd slot.
This is an opinion:
The reason is because Apple wants you to buy the functionality back.
You'd all fail a basic IQ test.
On 8 Jul 2025 18:28:42 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :
As to your 'facts': In your previous response you gave several
examples of your false/imposible premise resulting in a false
'conclusion' (which you call a 'fact').
When I state a fact unequivocally, I already know it to be a fact.
Such as "no iPhone ever sold had the sd card slot inside it".
But my name *is* Frank and his *is* Carlos. What's yours?
And there's nobody who adds more value to this newsgroup than I do.
That's an opinion,
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 14:12:51 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Carlos.
It's about whether that capability exists.
Correction: This pretty much sums up this thread for good...
Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with it,
all other things being equal.
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot can't
do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Frank.
It's about whether that capability exists.
Some things I say are facts, like:
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot can't
do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 19:19:37 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
... and than I named a few reasons for the "con" column.
You strange completely ignorant uneducated trolls, Frank Slootweg included, have never once in your entire lives ever stopped to ponder what the fundamental difference is between a fact and an opinion, Rudy.
This is a fact:
The iPhone doesn't have an sd slot.
This is an opinion:
The reason is because Apple wants you to buy the functionality back.
Marion, 2025-07-07 16:15:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 14:12:51 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Carlos.
It's about whether that capability exists.
Correction: This pretty much sums up this thread for good...
Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with it,
all other things being equal.
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot can't
do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
It's now about whether you use the capability that exists, Frank.
It's about whether that capability exists.
But what is *not* a fact, is that everbody *needs* this additional functionality - even if you try to convince people that they should feel
sad when their phone does not support SD cards.
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
Which is wrong.
The only thing you can't do without an SD card is to extend or
exchange internal memory storage.
Arno,
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
Which is wrong.
I'm sorry to disagree with you there, but it isn't.
The only thing you can't do without an SD card is to extend or
exchange internal memory storage.
/Technically/ Arlen is right there, as you just confirmed yourself. But
its also meaningless, even in the context he created himself.
I got another one : with all other things being equal, a phone without a physical "end call" button can't do what a phone with a physical "end call" button can. Its as meaningless.
True, but in addition, Marion's 'facts' are false, because they
are derived from a false/impossible premise: "all other things
being equal" is *impossible*. "all other things" *never are* and
*cannot be* "equal", there always are one or more - and probably
many - differences.
R.Wieser, 2025-07-11 15:38:
Arno,
All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
Which is wrong.
I'm sorry to disagree with you there, but it isn't.
The only thing you can't do without an SD card is to extend or
exchange internal memory storage.
/Technically/ Arlen is right there, as you just confirmed yourself. But
its also meaningless, even in the context he created himself.
I confirmed nothing.
I got another one : with all other things being equal, a phone without a
physical "end call" button can't do what a phone with a physical "end call" >> button can. Its as meaningless.
Exactly. And therefore this is *also* wrong. A "meaningless" "fact" is
not a correct fact but just wrong.
No. A fact that is meaningless in a particular argument is still a fact.
"Irrelevant" doesn't equal "incorrect".
The only thing you can't do without an SD card is to extend or
exchange internal memory storage.
/Technically/ Arlen is right there, as you just confirmed yourself. But
its also meaningless, even in the context he created himself.
I confirmed nothing.
Exactly. And therefore this is *also* wrong. A "meaningless" "fact"
is not a correct fact but just wrong.
Arno,
The only thing you can't do without an SD card is to extend or
exchange internal memory storage.
/Technically/ Arlen is right there, as you just confirmed yourself. But >>> its also meaningless, even in the context he created himself.
I confirmed nothing.
Is that so ? Read your own, first of the above quotes again. With an
Frank,
True, but in addition, Marion's 'facts' are false, because they
are derived from a false/impossible premise: "all other things
being equal" is *impossible*. "all other things" *never are* and
*cannot be* "equal", there always are one or more - and probably
many - differences.
I must disagree with you there. Although its rather theoretical, it *is* possible to have everything else the same. A manufacturer whos not about form but about function (freedom phone perhaps?) could decide to make a
batch of phones /without/ placing the sd-card and/or SIM-card slots, camera module and so on.
Not placing certain parts is something I've seen happen with other devices. The exact same "motherboard", but one with a few parts not placed.
Though having said that, his (implicite more-is-better - an *opinion*) claim *is* meaningless - even in the context he created himself.
Personaly I think that a phone without a torx screwdriver can't do the
things that a phone with one can do. And as such *any* phone without a torx screwdriver is sub-standard. :-)
Arno,
The only thing you can't do without an SD card is to extend or
exchange internal memory storage.
/Technically/ Arlen is right there, as you just confirmed yourself. But >>> its also meaningless, even in the context he created himself.
I confirmed nothing.
Is that so ? Read your own, first of the above quotes again. With an sd-card you can't, using your own words, "extend or exchange internal memory storage". With it you can. Even though Arlen likely ment something else,
a difference of functioning is what Arlen claimed to be a fact. And it is.
Exactly. And therefore this is *also* wrong. A "meaningless" "fact"
is not a correct fact but just wrong.
Hard disagree. A fact is just that, a fact. As such it can /only/ be
right - if its proven to be wrong it ceases to be a fact.
Though it *can* be abused, and in this case its obviousness, even more so than "water is wet", causes it to become meaningless /in regard to this subject/ (a similar statement elsewhere could be meaningfull).
When I tell you for a fact that the car that drove infront of me had wheels than that is rather obvious, making it meaningless. Without those wheels it would not be driving. But it does *not* make the (statement of) fact wrong.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
And yes, claiming "A can't do what B can" means "everything"
and not "a specific feature".
Ok... let's try it with the logical implication. "Marion" wrote:...
"All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot can't do
what the phone with the sd card slot can do."
Since there is no exact definition, what "can't do" means, this has to
be read as:
1) a phone without the sd card slot
2) can't do *anything* what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
As you say, your example is rather theoretical, but even
the theoretical example is unlikely to exist.
It's very likely that that 'exact same' phone without the
SD-card slot would be cheaper than the one without.
If not, why on earth would one buy the one without the slot?
That price difference - however tiny it may be - violates
the "all other things being equal" condition,
This is a fact:
The iPhone doesn't have an sd slot.
This is an opinion:
The reason is because Apple wants you to buy the functionality back.
And this opinion is even completely pointless since Apple never sold any iPhone with SD card slots - so there is no "getting functionality back".
The iPhone never had this.
I'm afraid that not many (if any) here will agree with that opinion though.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:31:48 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
I'm afraid that not many (if any) here will agree with that opinion though.
How many tutorials have you written & posted?
How many comprehensive tests of applications?
How many questions have you answered, Rudy?
But... and this is where your lack of education shows, this is also a fact: >> Any phone without the sd card slot is less capable than a phone with an
sd card in the sd card slot, all other things being equal.
The problem is that you have a singular view of what "capable" means which you're trying to push as relevant to the whole world. That is not accurate. If it were there would only ever be one type of phone which meets
everyone's needs. The fact that there is a very wide variety of models available tells you that "capability" is *very* context driven.
...And there's nobody who adds more value to this newsgroup than I do.
I'm afraid that not many (if any) here will agree with that opinion
though.
How many tutorials have you written & posted?
How many comprehensive tests of applications?
How many questions have you answered, Rudy?
Frank,
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to go along with that. I already have Arlen and, as it looks now, Arno playing their games. I do not need you playing another one.
Arno,
And yes, claiming "A can't do what B can" means "everything"
and not "a specific feature".
A change of the origional claim that you should not have tried to make.
And yes, claiming "A can't do what B can" means "everything"
and not "a specific feature".
A change of the origional claim that you should not have tried to
make.
Well - when I say, Rudy Wieser can't do what Arno Welzel can - that does
that mean? You can not write? You can not read? You don't understand
English?
And yes, claiming "A can't do what B can" means "everything"
and not "a specific feature".
A change of the origional claim that you should not have tried to make.
Well - when I say, Rudy Wieser can't do what Arno Welzel can - that does
that mean? You can not write? You can not read? You don't understand
English?
Arno,
And yes, claiming "A can't do what B can" means "everything"
and not "a specific feature".
A change of the origional claim that you should not have tried to
make.
Well - when I say, Rudy Wieser can't do what Arno Welzel can - that does
that mean? You can not write? You can not read? You don't understand
English?
:-) More games I see.
Kiddo, I dislike Arlen probably as much as you do, and also dislike how he tries to abuse his fact. But that does not mean that you can just make some bogus statements to make such a fact disappear.
If-and-when you even /think/ of doing that you are no better than Arlen.
Goodbye.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
I'm not playing any games.
[Misinterpretations, misrepresentations and resulting rambling deleted.]
But as was to be expected, we're back at our usual deadlock, so it's EOD.
Hi Arno & Rudy,
Since I'll agree with anyone who makes a sensibly logical
statement
1. Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with it,
all other things being equal (assuming you put an sd card in it!).
I have to back up Rudy on this one, Arno....
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
a phone that has ... an sd card into it ... will be able to
do "portable-storage" things which are *impossible* to do
without the card.
No, I'll call it quits. As has been the case several times
in the past, our discussion styles just aren't compatible.
No, I'll call it quits. As has been the case several times
in the past, our discussion styles just aren't compatible.
I can't argue that.
Frank,
But as was to be expected, we're back at our usual deadlock, so it's EOD.
Well, I can quote where I tried to explain what I thought of what you where doing, trying to salvage the conversation/discussion. If you want to continue it its upto you to make the next step.
But a question : why do your #1 and #2 say the same thing ?
I have to back up Rudy on this one, Arno....
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
Remember that I already disagreed with that one ?
a phone that has ... an sd card into it ... will be able to
do "portable-storage" things which are *impossible* to do
without the card.
Remember I also disagreed with that one ? several times if I'm not
mistaken.
Who knows, maybe there actually *are* some things you really can't do
without an sd-card. But as long as you refuse to specify what those things are you stand a zero chance to convince me.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 15:34:23 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
And yes, claiming "A can't do what B can" means "everything"
and not "a specific feature".
A change of the origional claim that you should not have tried to make.
Well - when I say, Rudy Wieser can't do what Arno Welzel can - that does
that mean? You can not write? You can not read? You don't understand
English?
Hi Arno & Rudy,
Since I'll agree with anyone who makes a sensibly logical statement (and disagree with those who do not), I have to back up Rudy on this one, Arno.
Frank and you are _desperate_ to find a flaw in the solid logic of:
1. Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with it,
all other things being equal (assuming you put an sd card in it!).
2. All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
a phone that has ... an sd card into it ... will be able to
do "portable-storage" things which are *impossible* to do
without the card.
Remember I also disagreed with that one ? several times if I'm not
mistaken.
I don't remember you disagreeing.
I only remember me telling you many times what I use portable
storage for that there is no equivalent otherwise.
If you feel you did disagree (& not just ask me to re-prove
what you don't bother to read), then simply point to the
Message-ID & I'll check it out.
Who knows, maybe there actually *are* some things you really can't
do without an sd-card. But as long as you refuse to specify what
those things are you stand a zero chance to convince me.
Stop saying I refuse to specify it.
Instead, look in this thread where I already did.
Message-ID: [snip]
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 17:37:32 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
I'm not seeing the salient quotes there...But a question : why do your #1 and #2 say the same thing ?
I agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible deductive reasoning, and you're correct. Both say the same thing, which is that the ability to use
the sd card as portable storage is available to phones with the sd slot.
I have to back up Rudy on this one, Arno....
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
Remember that I already disagreed with that one ?
Actually, I don't remember you disagreeing with that, but I'm sure you did
if you say you did. There is a typo though, where "now" should be "not".
If you feel you did disagree (& not just ask me to re-prove what you don't bother to read), then simply point to the Message-ID & I'll check it out.
a phone that has ... an sd card into it ... will be able to
do "portable-storage" things which are *impossible* to do
without the card.
Remember I also disagreed with that one ? several times if I'm not
mistaken.
I don't remember you disagreeing. I only remember me telling you many times what I use portable storage for that there is no equivalent otherwise.
If you feel you did disagree (& not just ask me to re-prove what you don't bother to read), then simply point to the Message-ID & I'll check it out.
Who knows, maybe there actually *are* some things you really can't do
without an sd-card. But as long as you refuse to specify what those things >> are you stand a zero chance to convince me.
Stop saying I refuse to specify it.
Instead, look in this thread where I already did.
Message-ID: <1036j6c$2e5d$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <102qiul$hgm$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <1036iii$1htt$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <103enn5$ft8$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <103en70$2mbk$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <10333md$1uos$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <102tjtq$p6c$[email protected]>
Message-ID: <102oidg$2onr$[email protected]>
Arlen,
a phone that has ... an sd card into it ... will be able to
do "portable-storage" things which are *impossible* to do
without the card.
Remember I also disagreed with that one ? several times if I'm not
mistaken.
I don't remember you disagreeing.
There /is/ a small chance you are telling the truth there. I'm not betting on it though.
I only remember me telling you many times what I use portable
storage for that there is no equivalent otherwise.
Yes, you have claimed the same thing a number of times. But as you never explained to us what that usage might be - and have refused to respond to where I did give alternatives - I'm still considering it to be false.
Yes, you have claimed the same thing a number of times. But as
you never explained to us what that usage might be - and have
refused to respond to where I did give alternatives - I'm still
considering it to be false.
[Frank's younger brother here :-) :]
He always claims, the '*impossible*' usage is using the SD-card
(and slot) as 'portable storage'
(see your above quote of his text). I.e. put some stuff on the
card, remove it from it's device, insert it in another device and
use the stuff on that other device.
Of course that claim is false, because one can have/use said 'portable storage', without having a [Micro]SD-card slot in the Android device.
Of course that/those alternative(s) have their own pres and cons,
but that doesn't make it/them '*impossible*'.
In the interest of not breaking this senseless non-discussion,
I will not reveal what this/these obvious alternative(s) is/are.
I only remember me telling you many times what I use portable
storage for that there is no equivalent otherwise.
Yes, you have claimed the same thing a number of times. But as you never explained to us what that usage might be - and have refused to respond to where I did give alternatives - I'm still considering it to be false.
If you feel you did disagree (& not just ask me to re-prove
what you don't bother to read), then simply point to the
Message-ID & I'll check it out.
Why ? You made it quite clear that you did not want to discuss it then, so all I would do is to waste my efforts.
You mean, one of those messages is the one where you described some usages and told you that there are other methods available ?
To be honest, I can think of a reason/situation or two why/when an sd-card would be something good to have. But when wants to think of himself as the only one who knows anything, and we are "strange completely ignorant uneducated trolls" ? Than I'm not really feeling inclined (understatement) to help him support his arguments. Something I definitily /would/ do in a honest discussion.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:28:01 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
Oh, look!To be honest, I can think of a reason/situation or two why/when an sd-card >> would be something good to have. But when wants to think of himself as the >> only one who knows anything, and we are "strange completely ignorant
uneducated trolls" ? Than I'm not really feeling inclined (understatement) >> to help him support his arguments. Something I definitily /would/ do in a >> honest discussion.
Carrying a thumb drive with you everywhere you go is only something you and Frank would come up with - where at least you could have figured out that
the cloud (if you pay through the nose for it) would do some of what sd
does (but at a price, not only in cost, but in privacy as it has to be paid for in the huge sizes that sd cards do for you, e.g., for your map data).
That you and Frank can't figure out what an sd card does is one piece of
the puzzle that informs me that both your IQs added up don't reach normal.
Add Alan Baker's IQ & the combination of your IQ added to Frank's IQ
coupled with Alan Bakers IQ of about 40, brings the net to about 50.
Jesus Christ, Rudy.
It's becoming clear you don't even know what a Message ID is.
Even though I gave you the Message IDs from this very thread.
You two trolls are twinsees.
You both ask for what was already stated, and then when I give you
the exact post, you still claim you're unable to read what was
already posted.
If you refuse to read them, then just quit saying I didn't provide
them.
I'm not an ignorant uneducated unhelpful person like you are,
Rudy.
I have entire *tutorials* on what you can do with sd cards, Rudy.
*Tutorial: How to set up sdcards for re-use & backup/restore* <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=47737&group=comp.mobile.android#47737>
How are you going to successively individually add, as
prices drop, inexpensive portable storage to a device
that doesn't have the slot?
It's obvious neither of you trolls has any experience with sd
cards, Rudy. I happen to have a lot of experience.
You have no experience with sd cards.
Carrying a thumb drive with you everywhere you go is only
something you and Frank would come up with
where at least you could have figured out that the cloud...
(but at a price, not only in cost, but in privacy
but I was at first surprised that neither Rudy nor Frank
ever used them.
It's clear neither of them has any experience whatsoever with them.
Carrying a thumb drive with you everywhere you go is only
something you and Frank would come up with
But carrying either a charger or just a charging cable with you everywhere you go is ofcourse absolutily normal.
Or a headphone/earplugs to listen to music or call people while not needing to keep the phone in hand. Or apples smart watches.
Also, weren't you talking about easily being able to exchange your "external storage" ? Are you only doing that at home ? If not than you must be carrying some sd-cards with you.
But yes, someone adding a thumbdrive to that mix would be plain silly.
Oh, wait ... I've been carrying one around with me for *years* (a 1GB stick. That tell you how long ago it is), far before I got my first smartphone. I guess that made me silly. I did enjoy having my files with me though, no matter the 'puter I was infront of.
where at least you could have figured out that the cloud...
(but at a price, not only in cost, but in privacy
Or you could have figured out home servers.
Old 'puters are cheap to get, and you get absolute privacy. Just install some version of linux, and off you go.
Ah, you fully forgot about that possibility. That happens I suppose.
but I was at first surprised that neither Rudy nor Frank
ever used them.
And you know that ... how ? Ah, mindreading again.
It's clear neither of them has any experience whatsoever with them.
If you say so.
The next time someone asks me about how to connect them to a microcontroller and access them I will tell them so, and give them your name. *You* know *everything* about them, right ? :-p
Carrying a thumb drive with you everywhere you go is only
something you and Frank would come up with
But carrying either a charger or just a charging cable with you
everywhere you go is ofcourse absolutily normal.
WTF?
It seems only you & Frank would suggest people bring along a
*permanently attached* thumbdrive at all times with them because
they lack sd hardware.
When you travel by plane/bus/rail you bring along a charger & cable.
While just walking around, many people do bring along a set of earbuds.
Also, weren't you talking about easily being able to exchange your
"external storage" ? Are you only doing that at home ? If not
than you must be carrying some sd-cards with you.
Since T-Mobile gave me my first 3 free Galaxies, shipped to me,
I simply put the 32GB sdcard (bought at 2021 prices) into each
But only you and Frank would suggest people bring along a
*permanently attached* thumbdrive at all times
Or you could have figured out home servers.
Windows doesn't do such servers all that well; but routers
do them well.
It's not a bad idea for me to write a helpful tutorial on the
process of setting up a secure private home swerver from Windows
using a home router.
Maybe, since you know so much Rudy, you or Frank or even
the completely unhelpful Alan Baker will beat me to it and
write that tutorial for us.
Old 'puters are cheap to get, and you get absolute privacy.
Just install some version of linux, and off you go.
Ah, you fully forgot about that possibility. That happens I
suppose.
It's interesting how *desperate* you are to find a workaround
to a ten-dollar sd card, Rudy... simply because your phone lacks
sd hardware.
but I was at first surprised that neither Rudy nor
Frank ever used them.
And you know that ... how ? Ah, mindreading again.
The fact you have no idea what portable memory is, Rudy,
is the evidence I use to ascertain the observation that
you know nothing about sd card use.
In summary of this thread, it appears that, other than Arno,
and possibly Carlos, Rudy and Frank (and Alan) have never
used sd cards in their lives.
At least not on phones.
1. Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with it,
all other things being equal (assuming you put an sd card in it!).
2. All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
Yes, but just that ONE SINGLE capability and not "a phone can do...".
1. Any phone without the sd slot is less capable than a phone with it,
all other things being equal (assuming you put an sd card in it!).
2. All other things being equal, a phone without the sd card slot
can't do what the phone with the sd card slot can do.
3. It's now about whether you use the capability that exists,
It's about whether that capability exists.
Yes, but just that ONE SINGLE capability and not "a phone can do...".
Arlen,
Jesus Christ, Rudy.
It's becoming clear you don't even know what a Message ID is.
Even though I gave you the Message IDs from this very thread.
How would you know ? Mind reading again ? And you do seem to have a reading problem (which I've mentioned a few times now, so it must be true).
I said I *would not* go thru those messages, as I would be searching for something I have no idea to what it looks like *and you do*.
You *really* are allergic to providing quotes of your own claims, aren't
you.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:31:48 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
I'm afraid that not many (if any) here will agree with that opinion though.
How many tutorials have you written & posted?
How many comprehensive tests of applications?
How many questions have you answered, Rudy?
You *really* are allergic to providing quotes of your own claims, aren't
you.
Maybe he is not using a normal Usenet application. At least for posting he uses scripts. If he is using also scripts for reading (I have my doubts)
it is impossible he can follow up conversations properly, do proper attribution, and do proper quoting.
Carlos,
You *really* are allergic to providing quotes of your own claims, aren't >>> you.
Maybe he is not using a normal Usenet application. At least for posting he >> uses scripts. If he is using also scripts for reading (I have my doubts)
it is impossible he can follow up conversations properly, do proper
attribution, and do proper quoting.
One thats would be easily solvable by saving a copy of send and received posts - just like most, if not all newsgroup readers do.
According to himself he's an engeneer who has programmed an 68000 by
entering hex numbers, and as such should have little problem editing a script.
IOW, if he is doing it that way than its a problem he created /and
maintains/ himself.
Though I like occams razor : the simpelest explanation is most allways the correct one.
Seeing that he also doesn't support , *in the same post* (read: no access to previous posts needed), his many, /many/ claims (and accusations) with anything, the chance that he's simply unable to do so is the more likely explanation.
I suppose he could run in another terminal whatever he uses for reading,
and copy paste across.
All this because of his paranoia that we don't get his actual name, and to change his given name at a whim.
All this because of his paranoia that we don't get his actual name, and
to change his given name at a whim. Privacy? Yeah sure :-p Rather
evading our filtering.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 22:28:01 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
To be honest, I can think of a reason/situation or two why/when an sd-card would be something good to have. But when wants to think of himself as the only one who knows anything, and we are "strange completely ignorant uneducated trolls" ? Than I'm not really feeling inclined (understatement) to help him support his arguments. Something I definitily /would/ do in a honest discussion.
Carrying a thumb drive with you everywhere you go is only something you and Frank would come up with
- where at least you could have figured out that
the cloud (if you pay through the nose for it) would do some of what sd
does (but at a price, not only in cost, but in privacy as it has to be paid for in the huge sizes that sd cards do for you, e.g., for your map data).
That you and Frank can't figure out what an sd card does is one piece of
Not one of you fools has any idea nor any experience with sd cards.
BTW, I'm not surprised Alan Baker never used an sd card because he owns iPhones, but I was at first surprised that neither Rudy nor Frank ever used them. It's clear neither of them has any experience whatsoever with them.
Well, Usenet is ephemeral and not indexed. Nor can we do a search on
only tutorials, going back decades.
That you and Frank can't figure out what an sd card does is one piece of
Well, we - well at least I - know full when what it can do, but *you*
keep 'forgetting' the use for which there is no alternative, so you keep shooting yourself in the feet.
Not one of you fools has any idea nor any experience with sd cards.
<BARF!> I used them ever since *2013* in my first phones and tablets,
which had too little Internal Storage, ranging from 4GB (effectively <=
1GB) to 8GB and 16GB.
Now, I don't use them anymore, because I have no need for them. (And
yes, my phone *does* have a SD-card slot.)
BTW, as I mentioned recently and you 'conveniently' ignored, only the current bottom (A16 and A26) models of your beloved Samsung Galaxy
A-Series still have a SD-card slot (shared as second SIM or SD-card).
The A36 and A56 do not have a SD-card slot.
So if you want to keep your precious SD-card slot in the future,
you'll have to downgrade *and* be damn quick about it!
Privacy isn't paranoia except to people who don't understand...
anything. You are an idiot if you think you can't figure out
my posts instantly.
The reason I randomize headers is the stated reason of privacy
from aggregators.
The headers are meaningless gift wrapping on the value of the
gift inside. My gift to this newsgroup is my contribution of
an immense wealth of facts.
Most of those facts, idiots on this newsgroup have never heard
before.
And, of course, they'll claim all facts aren't facts that they
don't know.
Think about my assessment of you being an idiot, Carlos, and
then think about how much it matters to me what you "think"
is why I do what I do.
An idiot proclaiming why they "think" I do what I do, is
meaningless. You, Rudy, Jeorg & Alan Baker are all idiots
who can't fathom the obvious.
So much about being nice, but when you're an utter idiot,
proclaiming all sorts of nonsensically absurd conspiracy theories,
Let's take just *one* use, Frank, for which there is no direct
alternative.
In 2021, you expand each of your 3 phones' storage by 32MB for
~20 bucks. In 2022, you expand it even further, by 64MB for
about the same cost. And, in 2023, you expand it to 128MB,
again, for about 20 bucks each.
Ah yes, the randomized header is supposed to make sure aggregators won't be able to match your new nym up with a previous one, but *we* are are supposed to see right thru such a randomisation.
Let's take just *one* use, Frank, for which there is no direct alternative.
In 2021, you expand each of your 3 phones' storage by 32MB for ~20 bucks.
In 2022, you expand it even further, by 64MB for about the same cost.
And, in 2023, you expand it to 128MB, again, for about 20 bucks each.
Ah yes, the randomized header is supposed to make sure aggregators
won't be able to match your new nym up with a previous one, but
*we* are are supposed to see right thru such a randomisation.
If it takes a human more than 5 seconds to figure out a message is
from me, then whatever he says is completely meaningless in terms
of adult value.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:32:15 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
All this because of his paranoia that we don't get his actual name, and
to change his given name at a whim. Privacy? Yeah sure :-p Rather
evading our filtering.
Carlos,
Privacy isn't paranoia except to people who don't understand anything.
You are an idiot if you think you can't figure out my posts instantly.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:31:10 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Well, Usenet is ephemeral and not indexed. Nor can we do a search on
only tutorials, going back decades.
How can I be nice to a person who concocts absurd conspiracies out of a misunderstanding of everything that he thinks he knows - yet he is wrong.
You're an idiot, Carlos, when you say things that idiotically stupid. Seriously.
Not reading further.
Not reading the rest.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:02:35 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Not reading the rest.
Carlos,
We've been discussing the Usenet web-searchable archives for years.
If you claim they don't exist, then there's nothing we can do for you.
Marion <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:08:16 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Not reading further.
It's you who claimed I was paranoid
That's an objective fact. Not an insult.
Marion <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 18:15:18 +0200, R.Wieser wrote :
Ah yes, the randomized header is supposed to make sure aggregators won't be >>> able to match your new nym up with a previous one, but *we* are are supposed
to see right thru such a randomisation.
If it takes a human more than 5 seconds to figure out a message is from me, >> then whatever he says is completely meaningless in terms of adult value.
It makes it impossible to find posts from you in the archives however. You claim to be helpful, but that is very unhelpful.
Many, many people are able to have truly anonymous online identities
without the need to keep changing them. A few are very well known. The most famous/notorious is probably Satoshi Nakamoto.
You're just an awkward sod hiding behind "muh privacy".
We've been discussing the Usenet web-searchable archives for years.
If you claim they don't exist, then there's nothing we can do for you.
I am aware of them. And I say that posting an article you name
"tutorial" to Usenet doesn't count as publishing a tutorial.
This is my opinion.
You may have a different opinion
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:41:20 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
We've been discussing the Usenet web-searchable archives for years.
If you claim they don't exist, then there's nothing we can do for you.
I am aware of them. And I say that posting an article you name
"tutorial" to Usenet doesn't count as publishing a tutorial.
Your opinion is essentially worthless, Chris - compared to that of mine.
See below for absolute proof as to why I can say that with conviction.
I'm nothing like the common person - Chris.
I'm nothing like the Apple trolls - Chris.
I've done things you (and the trolls) can only talk about, Chris.
I do it so that people can find those tutorials easily on the net.
On 2025-07-17 11:53, Marion wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:41:20 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Your opinion is essentially worthless, Chris - compared to that of mine.
See below for absolute proof as to why I can say that with conviction.
I'm nothing like the common person - Chris.
I'm nothing like the Apple trolls - Chris.
I've done things you (and the trolls) can only talk about, Chris.
I do it so that people can find those tutorials easily on the net.
You can't even figure out you're replying to Carlos, not Chris.
So I don't know whom I'm replying to unless I look to see who it is.
I didn't look this time.
It's literally written on the first line of YOUR reply. You're just too
wound up by the reply to care.
If it takes a human more than 5 seconds to figure out a message is from me, >> then whatever he says is completely meaningless in terms of adult value.
It makes it impossible to find posts from you in the archives however. You claim to be helpful, but that is very unhelpful.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:41:20 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
We've been discussing the Usenet web-searchable archives for years.
If you claim they don't exist, then there's nothing we can do for you.
I am aware of them. And I say that posting an article you name
"tutorial" to Usenet doesn't count as publishing a tutorial.
Your opinion is essentially worthless, Chris - compared to that of mine.
See below for absolute proof as to why I can say that with conviction.
I'm nothing like the common person - Chris.
I'm nothing like the Apple trolls - Chris.
I get all the common trolls confused. Mea culpa.
Apologies to Chris.
It's Carlos who doesn't know how to write a tutorial so he whines like a
baby girl because one published tutorial is more value added to the world than he can manage to add in his entire life.
Note that since I use scripts, I use GVim as my newsreader interface.
I don't see any headers unless I expressly dig about to look for them.
So I don't know whom I'm replying to unless I look to see who it is.
I didn't look this time.
I had simply assumed because he was complaining that he couldn't find anything on the net that it must have been Chris - but I was wrong.
I apologize to Chris for equating him with Carlos.
If it takes a human more than 5 seconds to figure out a message is from me, >> then whatever he says is completely meaningless in terms of adult value.
It makes it impossible to find posts from you in the archives however. You claim to be helpful, but that is very unhelpful.
Many, many people are able to have truly anonymous online identities
without the need to keep changing them. A few are very well known. The most famous/notorious is probably Satoshi Nakamoto.
You're just an awkward sod hiding behind "muh privacy".
I find some of my tutorials all the time in the first page of Google
searches where they must be good for Usenet posts to show up there.
I have never seen a usenet post come up as a google hit.
Example please?
But then again, I know which keywords to search for given how I write.
Still, how many other people on this newsgroup post tutorials, Chris?
None right?
Almost nobody is as helpful as I am.
I train academics and students in software development. I'm co-lead on a
MSc and supervise PhD students.
Your "tutorials" are only "helpful" to equally paranoid tinfoil brigaders.
Whereas I use community developed training material that actually gives people a skillset to use to improve their professional lives. Such as: https://software-carpentry.org/
Why do you think Amazon gives me hundreds of thousands of dollars of free stuff if I want it, just so that I can do insightful reviews for them?
It's Carlos who doesn't know how to write a tutorial so he whines like a
baby girl because one published tutorial is more value added to the world
than he can manage to add in his entire life.
Oh, I have written proper tutorials, but I will not tell you where.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :
Why do you think Amazon gives me hundreds of thousands of dollars of free
stuff if I want it, just so that I can do insightful reviews for them?
Correction.
Amazon Vine Gold gives me up to 8 items a day for free, where each item can be any amount, so if we average the amount to a simple hundred dollars, that's a risk to Amazon of 8 x $100 x 365 = $292,000 in product value.
<https://amazon.com/vine/about>
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:03:47 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
And you say my opinion is worthless. So is yours. Why would I bother to
read it, if you despise my opinion like that?
Carlos,
Amazon risks about $300K/year on me, so they assess my "opinion" in product reviews, where they consistently rate my insightfulness as excellent.
I'm nothing like you, Carlos. My opinion is extremely valuable.
Your opinion, is worthless.
Want proof?
Don't ever make the mistake of equating yourself to me, Carlos.
My IQ is three times that of yours. My education ten times that of yours.
Amazon has billions of people to choose from, and not only did they choose
me to be a Vine Gold member, but my insight is rated as excellent.
What's yours?
Hint: Your opinion is laughably worthless.
LOL.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 11:09:47 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
LOL.
Awwwww... you're hurting my feelings, Carlos.
Please don't ever make the mistake of equating yourself to me, Carlos.
You lack the intelligence & education to own the insight that I possess.
Ask yourself:
Do your tutorials show up on the first page of a Google search, Carlos?
Did Amazon choose you to be a Vine Gold member, Carlos?
Did Amazon rate your insightfulness as EXCELLENT, Carlos?
Companies that know insight (Amazon, Google), rate me as the best.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 11:11:54 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Amazon Vine Gold gives me up to 8 items a day for free, where each item can >>> be any amount, so if we average the amount to a simple hundred dollars,
that's a risk to Amazon of 8 x $100 x 365 = $292,000 in product value.
<https://amazon.com/vine/about>
Only tells me how daft Amazon is :-P
Aw... cmon... you're hurting my feelings. I'm gonna cry...
At least give me some credit for intelligence, since these are obvious facts/(assessments) that even you, who hates smart people, can't deny.
a. I write purposefully helpful tutorials all the time/(you can't)
b. Amazon invited me to Vine & promoted me to Gold/(you aren't invited)
c. Amazon rates me as EXCELLENT in "insightfulness"/(you'd fail)
d. Google searches show my Usenet posts on the first page/(yours aren't)
The first half is a stated fact/(the second half is my assessment of you). Companies that know insight (Amazon, Google), rate me as the best.
How do they rate you, Carlos?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 11:11:54 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Amazon Vine Gold gives me up to 8 items a day for free, where each item can >>> be any amount, so if we average the amount to a simple hundred dollars,
that's a risk to Amazon of 8 x $100 x 365 = $292,000 in product value.
<https://amazon.com/vine/about>
Only tells me how daft Amazon is :-P
Aw... cmon... you're hurting my feelings. I'm gonna cry...
At least give me some credit for intelligence, since these are obvious facts/(assessments) that even you, who hates smart people, can't deny.
a. I write purposefully helpful tutorials all the time/(you can't)
b. Amazon invited me to Vine & promoted me to Gold/(you aren't invited)
c. Amazon rates me as EXCELLENT in "insightfulness"/(you'd fail)
d. Google searches show my Usenet posts on the first page/(yours aren't)
The first half is a stated fact/(the second half is my assessment of you). Companies that know insight (Amazon, Google), rate me as the best.
How do they rate you, Carlos?
On 2025-07-18 10:43, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :
Why do you think Amazon gives me hundreds of thousands of dollars of free >>> stuff if I want it, just so that I can do insightful reviews for them?
Correction.
Amazon Vine Gold gives me up to 8 items a day for free, where each item can >> be any amount, so if we average the amount to a simple hundred dollars,
that's a risk to Amazon of 8 x $100 x 365 = $292,000 in product value.
<https://amazon.com/vine/about>
Only tells me how daft Amazon is :-P
On 2025-07-18 10:50, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:03:47 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
And you say my opinion is worthless. So is yours. Why would I bother to
read it, if you despise my opinion like that?
Carlos,
Amazon risks about $300K/year on me, so they assess my "opinion" in product >> reviews, where they consistently rate my insightfulness as excellent.
I'm nothing like you, Carlos. My opinion is extremely valuable.
Your opinion, is worthless.
Want proof?
Don't ever make the mistake of equating yourself to me, Carlos.
My IQ is three times that of yours. My education ten times that of yours.
Amazon has billions of people to choose from, and not only did they choose >> me to be a Vine Gold member, but my insight is rated as excellent.
What's yours?
Hint: Your opinion is laughably worthless.
LOL.
It's Carlos who doesn't know how to write a tutorial so he whines like a
baby girl because one published tutorial is more value added to the world
than he can manage to add in his entire life.
Oh, I have written proper tutorials, but I will not tell you where.
Hint: Your opinion is laughably worthless.
LOL.
The fact that tha braindead troll "Marion" (supposedly) reviews
products for Amazon is just yet another reason to never ever believe
online customer reviews, or even bother reading them. They're
obviuously full of lies and nonsense.
You are hurting me abdominal muscles. Please stop.
Obviously, since they're risking $300K/year on me, they are measuring my
output, where I'm measured as "excellent" by Amazon in "insight".
Whatever the value might seem to you it's far less them. Primarily because most people don't want 8 "free" every day. Where are they going to put
nearly 1000 items of junk *per year*? Plus the ticket price is not the cost to them.
Even if did really cost them $300k that's <0.1% of their gross profit. A rounding error. There is literally no risk to them. Plus they are effective employing you. How does it feel like to be working for one of the richest
men in the world for freebies? Is your own time so worthless to you?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 22:32:44 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Companies that know insight (Amazon, Google), rate me as the best.
Prove it. Show your real name. Then we will read your Amazon reports and
judge them.
Your opinion is worthless, Carlos.
Mine is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to Amazon, where they choose only people whom they can trust to give insightful critical reviews.
<https://i.postimg.cc/3x3nL4h6/amazon-trust.jpg>
Your opinion is meaningless, Carlos.
In fact, I'm graded every day on my opinion for thousands of products.
<https://i.postimg.cc/65t3Tttw/amazon-score.jpg>
Do you ever wonder why nobody picked you for hundreds of thousands of
dollars of free product to review with insightful acumen, Carlos?
You're not in the same league, Carlos.
Never make that mistake of thinking that I'm anything like you are.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:05:07 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
It's Carlos who doesn't know how to write a tutorial so he whines like a >>> baby girl because one published tutorial is more value added to the world >>> than he can manage to add in his entire life.
Oh, I have written proper tutorials, but I will not tell you where.
All you know about me, Carlos, is what I write here on Usenet, which is
more value added than you've ever added anywhere in your entire life.
The main point here is your opinion is meaningless & worthless, Carlos.
While mine is insightful, at least as judged by both Amazon & Google.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5FYJQc7/amazon-score.jpg>
Please never think for a moment that I'm anything like you are.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:05:07 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
It's Carlos who doesn't know how to write a tutorial so he whines like a >>> baby girl because one published tutorial is more value added to the world >>> than he can manage to add in his entire life.
Oh, I have written proper tutorials, but I will not tell you where.
All you know about me, Carlos, is what I write here on Usenet, which is
more value added than you've ever added anywhere in your entire life.
The main point here is your opinion is meaningless & worthless, Carlos.
While mine is insightful, at least as judged by both Amazon & Google.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5FYJQc7/amazon-score.jpg>
You count Amazon product reviews as *customer* as "proper tutorials"?
While mine is insightful, at least as judged by both Amazon & Google.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5FYJQc7/amazon-score.jpg>
You count Amazon product reviews as *customer* as "proper tutorials"?
The main point here is your opinion is meaningless & worthless, {anyones
name}
Arno,
While mine is insightful, at least as judged by both Amazon & Google.
<https://i.postimg.cc/k5FYJQc7/amazon-score.jpg>
You count Amazon product reviews as *customer* as "proper tutorials"?
Seeing that he has claimed more "facts" (all unsupported, iow: Lies) in this subject alone than most others do in their whole life I have no problem with imagining that he would do that.
And do notice there is no name anywhere in that picture. Is that score his
? We would have to take his word for it. And pardon me, but I do not.
Also, he provided /just/ that score, and has not included a single link to any of the actual reviews that resulted into it, meaning we cannot check-out the value of them for ourselves. For all I know those "reviews" could just tick all the "will this help Amazons sales ?" boxes. iow, not actually reviews, but instead just user-provided advertisements.
Bottom line: his above "mine is insightful" claim is as hollow as all the others he has made, worth exactly nothing.
The main point here is your opinion is meaningless & worthless, {anyones >>> name}
I take *anybodies* opinion or claim as having more meaning/worth than
Arlens. People who, for whatever reason, cannot even explain their reasoning to their own claims (let alone support them) and refuse to listen to people who can (read: refuse to learn from their mistakes) can't be trusted. They /will/ cause people to be maimed or even killed.
Also : As far as I can tell there actually is one thing you can do with an sd-card and a phone that you can't do without, which would give him a
(highly questionable) technical win. For all the education and accomplishments he has claimed (being an highly-educated engeneer among
them) he's been unable to find it.
Ah, I almost forgot : Has anybody seen Arlen fix his mistaken 'you can do with an sd-card (and a phone) what you can't do without it' fact and apologise to us here ? He claimed-for-a-fact he always does that ...
You're being patted on the head by an AI for being a well-behaved dog. you're such a good boy!
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 09:55:26 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :
You're being patted on the head by an AI for being a well-behaved dog.
you're such a good boy!
You can denigrate that Amazon invited me to Vine & didn't invite you Chris. But your insults are whining because you didn't right insightful reviews.
You can denigrate that Amazon invited me to Vine & didn't invite you Chris. >> But your insults are whining because you didn't right insightful reviews.
I hope you are aware, that you are still just the product and not a
"valued member" of anything at Amazon. The whole "we invite people to a special program" thing is just marketing - so people like you can feel "important". In fact you give Amazon your workforce for free. And no,
getting free products to review is not "getting paid for work". For
Amazon this is just part of their marketing budget, nothing else.
I always agree with anyone who says something logically sensible.
I agree with Arno & Chris that I'm not "making any money"
off of Amazon, although, if I wanted to, I could *sell*
everything I get after 6 months.
Note I'm not disagreeing with you on anything other than my
point that the people (not you) who were denigrating my
insightful value don't own the ability to be as insightful
as those two simple examples show that I am.
In short, I only brought it up in defense of my argument that
I am helpful. They're not.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:20:51 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :
Why is it you feel you must double-post this stuff...What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
Why is the iPhone always lacking in basic industry standard hardware functionality?
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
...Marion wrote:
What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?
Why is the iPhone always lacking in basic industry standard hardware
functionality?
Why is it you feel you must double-post this stuff...
...I mean, ASIDE from your obvious narcissism.
:-)
There are things a phone with a card in the sd slot can do that are
impossible to do any other way - so I agree it's a critically important
basic hardware feature if you want to make the most of your phone.
If this is "critically important" depends on the user.
For me personally an SD card is completely irrelevant. I just don't need
it any longer. And yes, this was a deliberate decision for me and no, I
don't care about what you say about this.
For one, you can add massive storage for almost nothing in costs.
Which I don't need. I have around 2 TB of storage available on my own
server and I have unlimited data on my smartphone. So uploading images
and videos after recording them is no problem at all and I have no need
for more than the internal 128 GB of storage in the phone. And when I
once have to replace the phone in a few years, the next model will
likely have 256 GB or more anyway.
This allows massive media (up to a terabyte) without another device.
For another, you can port a phone WITHOUT any other device involved.
The data is always available offline without any other devices involved.
Data which is *only* on the phone is always in danger of getting lost.
Therefore I synchronize all important data with my own server anway. And
that server does a backup daily to another geographical location. Every backup exists at least in three copies.
And data which I need on the road is not that much: around 5 GB Open
Street Map map data, another 6 GB for music and I keep the latest photos
an videos I have taken - but since these get synchronized with my server anyway and archived after 6 months, I don't need to keep everything.
There are things a phone with a card in the sd slot can do that are impossible to do any other way - so I agree it's a critically important
basic hardware feature if you want to make the most of your phone.
For one, you can add massive storage for almost nothing in costs.
This allows massive media (up to a terabyte) without another device.
For another, you can port a phone WITHOUT any other device involved.
The data is always available offline without any other devices involved.
On 2025-07-25 10:45, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:31:13 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
There are things a phone with a card in the sd slot can do that are
impossible to do any other way - so I agree it's a critically important >>> basic hardware feature if you want to make the most of your phone.
If this is "critically important" depends on the user.
Arno,
I'm logically sensible so you must pardon me for both agreeing with you and disagreeing with you - purely on the basis of basic logic & astute sense.
The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno.
I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.
You can claim (as you have) that it's "less reliable" (and it is); but that's essentially meaningless in terms of what you're putting on it.
You can claim (as you have) that it's "slower" (and it is); but again, all you're putting on it is stuff like media and/or map data (which is huge).
The very fact you paid an arm and a leg for something that you *later* claim is not critically important belies your assessment of the facts.
It was critically important for you to pay hugely for more than 64GB.
Which is the main point after all.
Arlen, me and others have told you, several times, that we have a card
slot on our phones and never used it. It is not critical to us.
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:31:13 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
There are things a phone with a card in the sd slot can do that are
impossible to do any other way - so I agree it's a critically important
basic hardware feature if you want to make the most of your phone.
If this is "critically important" depends on the user.
Arno,
I'm logically sensible so you must pardon me for both agreeing with you and disagreeing with you - purely on the basis of basic logic & astute sense.
The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno.
I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.
You can claim (as you have) that it's "less reliable" (and it is); but
that's essentially meaningless in terms of what you're putting on it.
You can claim (as you have) that it's "slower" (and it is); but again, all you're putting on it is stuff like media and/or map data (which is huge).
The very fact you paid an arm and a leg for something that you *later*
claim is not critically important belies your assessment of the facts.
It was critically important for you to pay hugely for more than 64GB.
Which is the main point after all.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:28:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.
All else being equal, it's a logical impossibility for a phone without the
sd card to be able to do what a phone with the sd card can do. Period.
It's not about whether you use it; it's about its fundamental capabilities.
On 2025-07-25 13:43, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:28:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.
All else being equal, it's a logical impossibility for a phone without the sd card to be able to do what a phone with the sd card can do. Period.
It's not about whether you use it; it's about its fundamental capabilities.
No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same
things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.
Not only do we not accept it, but his 'logic' is false, because -
as I wrote before and he as usual dishonestly, 'conveniently'
silently snipped/ignored - his premise is *impossible*.
"All else being equal" can and does not exist.
If he thinks it can/does, he only has to give one example.
I/we do not have to prove our position,
because one can not prove a negative.
Not only do we not accept it, but his 'logic' is false, because -
as I wrote before and he as usual dishonestly, 'conveniently'
silently snipped/ignored - his premise is *impossible*.
"All else being equal" can and does not exist.
And as I told you a while back, that was an hypothetical case, to focus your attention on the existance of sd-card slots.
You want to point fingers at Arlen for "'conveniently' silently snipped/ignored" ? Take a look in the mirror. :-(
If he thinks it can/does, he only has to give one example.
I/we do not have to prove our position,
Wrong. As *you* claimed that its impossible, its also upto *you* to prove it. Just as Arlen needs to do it for his own claims.
because one can not prove a negative.
True. But as you manouvred yourself in that corner its noones problem but yours.
On 2025-07-25 13:43, Marion wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:28:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.
All else being equal, it's a logical impossibility for a phone without the >> sd card to be able to do what a phone with the sd card can do. Period.
It's not about whether you use it; it's about its fundamental capabilities.
No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same
things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.
No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same
things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.
Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.
Since almost nobody
actually ever used them, the SD card slot is going the way of the
dinosaur, where it belongs.
The few cents saved by removing the SD card
slot now goes towards having, for example, a higher resolution camera instead*.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:41:26 +1200, Your Name wrote :
No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same
things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.
Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.
Ask Apple to refund you the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
While you're at it, ask them to refund you for their lack of aux & RAM.
And for their substandard batteries. And the loss of the charger.
This strategy of removing basic functionality so you have to buy it back is one of the reasons that Apple makes so much profit off of its customers.
Since almost nobody
actually ever used them, the SD card slot is going the way of the
dinosaur, where it belongs.
You're wrong.
The fact is 100% of Sony phones sold today have the sd slot, and 75% of Samsung phones sold today have the slot and 66% of all Androids have it.
I will agree with anyone who states a logically sensible viewpoint,
Frank,
Not only do we not accept it, but his 'logic' is false, because -
as I wrote before and he as usual dishonestly, 'conveniently'
silently snipped/ignored - his premise is *impossible*.
"All else being equal" can and does not exist.
And as I told you a while back, that was an hypothetical case, to focus your attention on the existance of sd-card slots.
You want to point fingers at Arlen for "'conveniently' silently snipped/ignored" ? Take a look in the mirror. :-(
If he thinks it can/does, he only has to give one example.
I/we do not have to prove our position,
Wrong. As *you* claimed that its impossible, its also upto *you* to prove it. Just as Arlen needs to do it for his own claims.
because one can not prove a negative.
True. But as you manouvred yourself in that corner its noones problem but yours.
You may think it's a hypothetical case, he presents it as
a practical one.
You want to point fingers at Arlen for "'conveniently'
silently snipped/ignored" ? Take a look in the mirror. :-(
I'm not snipping anything. I responded to what he wrote,
I'm not responding to you.
True. But as you manouvred yourself in that corner its noones
problem but yours.
Nope, no corner.
I/we don't have to, because one can not prove a negative. Logic 101.
Frank,
I/we don't have to, because one can not prove a negative. Logic 101.
Lol. Yes, "I/we" have to. That you can't just means that you have an undefendable position. Which is also logic 101..
Kiddo, you are as dishonest as Arlen is.
I/we don't have to, because one can not prove a negative.
Logic 101.
Lol. Yes, "I/we" have to. That you can't just means that you
have an undefendable position. Which is also logic 101.
Sigh! Please don't try to teach me any 'lessons' on logic.
"One can not prove a negative." is a logic law.
Your footstamping doesn't change that.
As to "That you can't just means that you have an undefendable
position.": *I* do not have a 'position', *Arlen* has
so *he* has to prove his position, because the reverse is impossible
That you fail to grasp basic logic, doesn't make me dishonest.
And cut out the 'Kiddo' (etc.) crap. We didn't go to school together.
If you can argue *why* Arlen doesn't have to prove his position
but I ... do not need your unsubstantiated confrontational
discorse.
Until then, it's once more EOD.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:28:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:31:13 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
There are things a phone with a card in the sd slot can do that are
impossible to do any other way - so I agree it's a critically important
basic hardware feature if you want to make the most of your phone.
If this is "critically important" depends on the user.
Arno,
I'm logically sensible so you must pardon me for both agreeing with you and disagreeing with you - purely on the basis of basic logic & astute sense.
The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno.
I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.
Could you live with a 64GB phone that has no chance of adding storage?
Sigh! Please don't try to teach me any 'lessons' on logic.
"One can not prove a negative." is a logic law.
The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of
internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno.
No, because I already have the memory and thus the sd slot is *NOT* "critically important" for me!
I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.
Yes. But it is still not "critically important" for me.
Could you live with a 64GB phone that has no chance of adding storage?
Yes. I would just have to change some of my habits how I use it. But I
could to that of course. In the past I had phones which even had only 32
GB and could live with that just fine.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same >>>>> things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.
Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.
Ask Apple to refund you the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
Apple also had iPhones *with* SD card? How much more did they cost?
Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:17 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a >>>> model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it. >>>> And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.
It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.
Telling people, that they lie if they say that an sd card is not
important for them is not "logic" but just stupid.
Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?
To owners of phones that lack basic functionality, it's "courageous".
You clearly don't realize what you did and what your thought process was.
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:26:12 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of >>> internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno. >>No, because I already have the memory and thus the sd slot is *NOT*
"critically important" for me!
It's interesting that you don't seem to realize you proved my point.
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.
I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.
Yes. But it is still not "critically important" for me.
You don't seem to realize that it was critically important to you, Arno.
Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?
Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?
Because I can afford it. I have enough money.
Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?
This is irrelevant.
You said Apple should refund the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
But how can there be a "lack" if Apple never offered the same device
*with* sd card?
A Rolex Submariner is also much more expensive than a Casio WV-59.
Should Rolex also refund the money for not having accurate time because
it lacks a time signal reciever and even doesn't have basic functions
like an alarm, stop watch or timer like the Casio WV-59?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:35:05 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno. >>What exactly did *I* "buy back"?
We are both discussing two related but different sets of equations.
You paid x for a phone with y amount of storage.
From your perspective, you didn't buy anything back.
From your perspective, the storage came with the phone.
I understand your perspective (if that is an accurate portrayal of it).
My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage. And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.
I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).
In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.
My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage. >> And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.
But then I would have a phone which would lack features, my current
phone has - like compatibility with a Quadlock case or an excellent camera.
I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't >> even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).
In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.
Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.
Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 155:26:07 |
| Calls: | 12,092 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,703 |
