In article <slrnsitb49.tnb.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> > In article <sgm2j7$99u$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> >> and because it's a Mastercard which is not as
> >> widely accepted as Visa,
>
> > yes it is.
>
> There are a couple of places that I can't use a MasterCard.

and there a couple of places that don't take visa. overall, acceptance
is pretty much the same.

his claim that mastercard 'is not as widely accepted as visa' is of
course, false.

amex has less acceptance than either of those, although not by much.
those who use amex tend to spend more, so stores are motivated to
accept it. they used to have higher transaction fees, but they've
greatly reduced it and are now competitive with mc/v which in some
cases, can be higher than amex with the higher tier cards, such as visa
infinite.

discover is the least widely accepted, although, when apple pay first
came out, they offered 10% cash back or 10x 'miles', which was a very
lucrative deal.

<https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150909006702/en/Discover-Annou
nces-Apple-Pay-Availability-10-Cashback#.VfHL7xHBzGd>
From September 16, to the end of the year, cardmembers who pay
with their Discover card using Apple Pay will automatically earn an
extra 10% Cashback Bonus on up to $10,000 of in-store purchases.
Discover it Miles, Miles and Escape cardmembers will earn an extra 10
miles per dollar on up to $10,000 of in-store purchases.

In article <sgmaau$1lh5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> > google knows who you are, even if you later remove it.
>
> How?

because they're a lot smarter than you are (which isn't saying much).

google's entire business model is tracking and data-mining people. the
more information they can get, the more money they make.

if you think you can easily fool them, you are greatly mistaken. they
know all the tricks and then some. they're many steps ahead of you.

even if you never created a google account, they still can track you.

in fact, the stuff you do to hide yourself makes you *more* unique than
a rando who blends into the crowd, making it easier to link everything
together.

one way to avoid it is use a custom rom with apps that don't use google
services, which greatly limits what apps can be used, but even that's
not a guarantee.

oh, and facebook has a shadow profile of you too.

In article <slrnsitbfh.tnb.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> >> and pay with card you have set as the default credit card, when you
> >> hold the unlocked phone up to the payment terminal,
>
> > there's no reason to unlock the phone and wait for an app to autolaunch
> > to use apple pay.
>
> It is very hard to believe that sms has ever used an iPhone, isn't it?

the more he posts, the more it becomes clear he has not.

On 2021-08-31 4:46 p.m., sms wrote:
> On 8/31/2021 12:28 PM, RabidHussar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Honestly, I do appreciate the assurances that this form of payment is
>> more secure than what I'm used to. What I've been using for years in
>> the form of cards + RFID simply doesn't work for me and it's clearly
>> time for something better to take its place. I know that it's been
>> around for a while but I'm always very prudent in adopting new
>> technology, no matter how convenient or easy it might be.
>
> I was hesitant as well. What really convinced me to start using Apple
> Pay and Google Pay was the credit card I got that gave me 3% cash back
> on everything, but only on mobile wallet purchases. That's 50% higher
> than any of my other cards. It's not a huge amount of money but it's
> still a couple of hundred dollars a year that I'd rather have than not
> have. Now I rarely use a physical card (only at stores like Home Depot,
> Lowes, and Walmart).
>
> Even though I use both Apple Pay and Google Pay, it's Samsung Pay, on a
> Samsung MST equipped phone, that has been especially nice. We still have
> a few stores around here that don't accept Apple Pay or Google Pay, but
> where Samsung Pay works (MST simulates the magnetic stripe on a credit
> card) and I've made some large purchases from those stores (two water
> heaters for example). Unfortunately, three stores that somehow prevented
> Samsung Pay from working are Home Depot, Lowes, and Walmart. It used to
> work at all of them, but no more. In a few years the mag-stripe readers
> will be gone and MST will offer no advantages, and Samsung already
> removed it from the Galaxy S21 line.
>
> nospam is wrong of course™ about there not being an app. It's called
> Apple Wallet, see
> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-wallet/id1160481993>. It will
> automatically launch, and pay with card you have set as the default
> credit card, when you hold the unlocked phone up to the payment
> terminal, but you may want to open the app manually and select a
> particular credit card depending on the merchant. For example you may
> want to use the Apple Credit Card at an Apple store to get 3% cash back
> and 0% financing, but you can't use it at Costco since Costco doesn't
> take Mastercard. You may want to use a 3% cash back card at Costco
> instead of the 2% Costco Citibank Visa, except when you're purchasing a
> big ticket item where you want the two years of extended warranty
> instead of the extra 1% cash back.
>
> The only store I really had a problem with paying with a phone is at a
> store that Arlen/Robin/Dean/etc. is familiar with, Pool Guys in
> Saratoga. I paid with Samsung Pay and it went right through but the
> employee didn't believe that I had paid. I had to pay again with a
> physical card then call my bank and explain the whole bizarre situation
> and get the mobile payment charge removed.
>
> If you ever go to China, forget about using a physical credit card, or
> Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay. Everyone uses Alipay or WeChat
> Pay, and if you try to pay with cash they sometimes don't know how to
> handle it. Even the beggars accept mobile wallet payments. In Europe,
> paying with your phone is the normal way to pay, and it's especially
> useful with a U.S. credit card since you won't have to sign a receipt
> since most U.S. credit cards don't support Chip & PIN with PIN priority.

I have to admit that I have no interest in ever going to China. I try to
stay away from Communists.

--
@RabidHussar

On 2021-08-31 6:08 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>>> In my neighborhood in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California, we don't have
>>> cable service yet so we're all on WISP and our properties are 40 acre zoned
>>> (that means you can't put two houses on 79 acres - you can only put one).
>>
>> That honesty sounds awesome to me. I would love to be so isolated from
>> everyone else around me. :)
>
> It's good and bad being up in the mountains in the middle of nowhere.
>
> We're 16 miles from the nearest gas station, and about 30 miles from the
> Costco cheap ones, so we have to plan ahead on groceries. We all have our
> own water wells and septic and propane and WISP utilities, since nothing
> comes to us over the ground but power and telephone (just like in the
> 50s'!).
>
> Speaking of power on the poles, our PG&E electric power goes out once a
> month for about a day each over a period of five or six years, but lately
> it's gone out twice a week for the entire month of August, so we have to get
> good at dealing with spikes and backups and switching to the generators,
> etc.
>
> Luckily, our carrier gives all of us free cellular repeaters and/or
> femtocells, so we can get cellular signal even with towers rather far away
> although I must say that with 5G, we've had _fantastic_ signal up here!
> https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg
>
> Also we get a _lot_ of tourists, bikers, hikers, and sightseers, who can't
> seem to stay on their side of the road (there are no stripes as the roads
> are legally too narrow for such amenities). Every once in a while we get to
> watch the helicopters pull out the pot farm produce and we get to see the
> big trucks winch a car back up from deep in the chaparral.
>
> The good news is the airplanes fly _below_ us when they come in to land, and
> the clouds are often below us too, so we get a lot of clean air & sunlight.
>
> One thing we have in mountains is clear line of sight for hundreds of miles,
> so we can "see" oh, maybe a thousand or two thousand access points with the
> right equipment, and where my own access point is about 3 miles away or so.
> https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg
>
> Given we have to get our Internet over the air somehow, we're all very good
> at debugging our radios, where I don't know anyone on Android who doesn't
> use these wifi debuggers a lot.
> https://i.postimg.cc/4xgmTTgm/wifi01.jpg
>
> And since we all have our own cellular towers inside our homes (I have two
> of them since I have a big house), we also get good at cellular signal
> debugging.
> https://i.postimg.cc/Hn05bQwG/wifi02.jpg
>
> With Cellular-Z, for example, I can see EXACTLY which cell I'm on:
> https://i.postimg.cc/Gtywwn8f/signal01.jpg
>
> And when I move around my two internal in-home towers, I can adjust things:
> https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg
>
> None of this is possible with the crippled Apple iPhone ecosystem.
> It's a toy OS that only people who play games seem to love.
>
>>> This means we have antennas everywhere, to the barn, the stable, the shed,
>>> the pool, the driveway gate, the road gate, etc. where debuggers are useful.
>>
>> I'll just assume that your OTA television reception isn't too good,
>> being surrounded by mountains and all.
>
> What we do is use the Internet and often "sticks" such as a Roku to get
> whatever we want, although most of us had satellite TV & Dish TV in the
> past.
>
> At this point, with our Ubiquiti equipment, we have the full legal limit on
> transmit and we have fantastic receiver sensitivity so we're doing OK for
> now (we also have all the free noise waterfall curves that no phone has).

Ah, so you're basically _up_ in the mountains, I misunderstood and
thought you were just surrounded by them. I guess my OTA statement won't
make sense in that respect.

>>> It's not a question of whether the iPhone is a crippled platform or not.
>>> The main question is what or who is it that cripples the iPhone so much?
>>
>> I've already determined that I'm not a fan of Apple's walled garden even
>> though I admire the way that they push innovation compared to everyone
>> else.
>
> You're joking right?
> Apple? Innovation?
>
> What? Removing the headphone jack? That's innovation?
> <https://youtu.be/oJZuSVl5wjM>

It's annoying but still an innovation if what you're interested in
selling in higher quality music. M4A sound quality is fine for most
people but some want to be able to hear all of the instruments in the
background which usually get muffled in the compression of CD music into
a lossy format. Remove the headphone jack and you're also removing the
analog connector which doesn't provide the sound quality enthusiasts
desire.

> Never having an sd card slot? That's innovation?
> No FM radio? That's innovation?

I didn't know about the FM radio omission but the SD card part I can
understand if what they're trying to sell is fat transmission rates in
their storage. I prefer the SD card approach myself though which is one
of the reasons I go for Android in general. I am not too concerned about
storage speed but rather having sufficient storage.

> The iPhone is a cripple (yes, I have plenty of iOS devices).
> With iOS, you can't do even the simplest of the most basic things.
>
> Like organize your homescreen the way _you_ want it organized.
> https://i.postimg.cc/WpM4FM5t/web01.jpg
>
> But more to the point, basic debugging with iOS doesn't even exist!
> https://i.postimg.cc/3r0yNRcT/network02.jpg
>
> The Apple iphone ecosystem will _always_ be crippled compared to Android.
> The reason is very simple and has nothing to do with "innovation".
>
> Apple drastically limits what the iPhone can do; Google can't.
> It's that simple.

I have no doubt about that at all. For cell phone uses, I never saw the
iPhone option as being superior to what Android manufacturers are
offering. I notice that the people who opt for Apple's hardware are
usually people who don't understand their computers or the operating
system and simply don't want to understand them.

> Apple doesn't innovate - Apple _advertises_ that they do.
> But Apple has _never_ made a chip that wasn't unfixably flawed too.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+unfixable+chip+flaws

I was not aware of this one. I have to admit that it makes the M1 chip
look pretty damned bad.

> The _market_ determines the app functionality, not Apple or Google.
> And the market _provides_ the innovation - not Apple or Google.
>
> Hell, Apple has _never_ made an SOC that was even close to best in class.
> Apple can't even make a simple modem for heavens sake.
>
> And Apple can't even _integrate_ a modem into the rest of their SOC.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+can%27t+integrate+modem
>
> Don't talk about innovation if you're getting it from a Jony Ive commercial.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.internet.wireless/c/G72EDGvUiuE
>
> Apple bullshits like nobody else can - so that's where you get "innovation".
>
> *Nobody spends _less_ percentagewise than Apple in R&D* by the way. Nobody.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+spends+less+R%26D
>
> That's "Apple's" bullshit innovation for you.
> All _marketing_ and almost nothing in actual R&D.
>
> Please don't use the word "innovation" please, when you're discussing what
> amounts to a crippled device which can't do even the simplest of the most
> basic stuff (such as debug wifi and cellular radios, which is the topic here
> and which I do all the time but it can't be done on the crippled iPhones).
>
> BTW, if you want some screenshots of how we debug in the mountains, see:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/05S6CtNn/align03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/0NYJn7mF/nanobridge-nanobeam.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/25NdBZ7f/horn-to-router.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/25v3FT6S/debug-on-android.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/6QQ2Lt74/align02.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/905nFgxX/nanobeamnanobridge.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/bNMMZ0Nv/wifi-speed.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Bv0wZbDh/pbe-m2-400-802-11-wifi-setting.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/BZrZpDyp/debug-apps.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/cHLndnbY/antenna.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/CLBXc080/antenna03.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/D0vfqM3p/horns.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/DZccY2YD/decibels.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Dzq9Bsjs/pb-m2-400-nanobeam.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/FRqR6DSq/android-wifi-analyzer.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/gcBWpxnV/pbe-m2-400-bridge-router.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/GpCG1H3G/airviewneedsjava.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Hs0NWSKr/laptopnanobeam.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/htQ469sQ/pbe-m2-400-ap-station.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/JhyCRT69/horn-to-switch.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/JzpthvTr/align04.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/kg5LKkz9/pbe-m2-400-airmax-setting.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrkz5mgs/antenna01.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/pLXCzFxC/powerbeam-nanobeam.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/QMNv5FBC/typical-range-ptp.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/s2c2L8Wd/mikrotik-router.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/sfkHW6WG/align.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/SK04C6zL/ubiquiti-bullet-M2-hp.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/yNXw0TZS/antenna02.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/yx4CgWYt/mikrotik-router-config.jpg>
> <https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketdish/rd_ds_web.pdf
> <https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketm/RocketM_DS.pdf
>
> Try to do _any_ of that debugging with the crippled iPhone.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> https://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/03/apple-bans-wifi-stumbler-iphone-apps-blame
>> s-use-of-private-apis.html
>
> that's more than 11 years old.
>
> a *lot* has changed since then.

FACT:
Only iOS is so crippled that it can't do even the simplest of basic things.

And yet, even 11 years old, it proves yet again you were full of shit.
*The facts show it is Apple itself who made the iPhone a cripple.*

Not the app developers (as you had claimed).
And not the lack of customer desire (as you also had claimed).

You'll stop at nothing to defend against the fact the iPhone is crippled.

FACT:
Every operating system _except_ iOS has these graphical wifi debuggers.

RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
> Remove the headphone jack and you're also removing the
> analog connector which doesn't provide the sound quality enthusiasts
> desire.

It's a handheld device.
You want sound quality, you're not going to get it in a tinny tiny speaker.

>> Never having an sd card slot? That's innovation?
>> No FM radio? That's innovation?
>
> I didn't know about the FM radio omission

We use FM radio a lot in the mountains, but only on Android phones.
It's yet another functionality that is _impossible_ on iPhones.

Anyone who doesn't realized the iPhone is a cripple only plays games.

> but the SD card part I can
> understand if what they're trying to sell is fat transmission rates in
> their storage.

The lack of the standard sdcard slot helps Apple sell more stuff.

> I prefer the SD card approach myself though which is one
> of the reasons I go for Android in general. I am not too concerned about
> storage speed but rather having sufficient storage.

Having the card is like having a doctor & lawyer in the family.
You don't need them all the time - but when you need them - it helps.

Again, the lack of the sdcard is another reason why the iPhone is a cripple.

>> Apple drastically limits what the iPhone can do; Google can't.
>> It's that simple.
>
> I have no doubt about that at all.

Apple has no edge on technology (either hardware or software).
I'm being generous as Apple actually _sucks_ at both hardware & software.
But let's be nice to Apple & admit they have no edge in either.

So why is the iPhone so crippled?
The reason is simple.

Apple cripples it. Google can't.

> For cell phone uses, I never saw the
> iPhone option as being superior to what Android manufacturers are
> offering. I notice that the people who opt for Apple's hardware are
> usually people who don't understand their computers or the operating
> system and simply don't want to understand them.

Most iPhone owners are scared witless.
They are desperate for someone (anyone) to make them _feel_ safe.

They also want to feel stylish (as if a phone could possibly do that).
And they want to feel they belong to a special clique (which they do).

>> Apple doesn't innovate - Apple _advertises_ that they do.
>> But Apple has _never_ made a chip that wasn't unfixably flawed too.
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+unfixable+chip+flaws
>
> I was not aware of this one. I have to admit that it makes the M1 chip
> look pretty damned bad.

Apple can't design an SOC without built-in unfixable severe flaws.
Remember, Apple's R&D is nothing compared to Apple's huge marketing arm.

Apple has never sufficiently tested _any_ of its products.
It's sufficient to just _say_ they're tested.

They _all_ have horrid unfixable built-in security flaws.

>> Try to do _any_ of that debugging with the crippled iPhone.
>
> Well, I've clearly hit a nerve. However, you just made me a lot better
> about being using an Android user.

All that wifi & cellular debugging is _impossible_ with the iPhone.
To own an iPhone is to own a crippled device.

The reason is simple.
Apple cripples it. Google can't.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> because they're a lot smarter than you are (which isn't saying much).

Tell me how Google is tracking me, given I've set up my Android phone for
privacy (which is _impossible_ to do on iOS).

> google's entire business model is tracking and data-mining people. the
> more information they can get, the more money they make.

No doubt about it. Tell me how Google is tracking me given you know how I've
set up my Android phone for privacy (this privacy is impossible on iOS).

> if you think you can easily fool them, you are greatly mistaken. they
> know all the tricks and then some. they're many steps ahead of you.

No doubt they're smart. VP's in Google live all around me, as do VPs of
Apple and Roku and TSMC, etc.

But tell me how they're tracking me, since I've set up Android for privacy
(which is something that is impossible to do on the crippled iPhone).

> even if you never created a google account, they still can track you.

I have no doubt given I've blocked many of those avenues, but you still
haven't told us _anything_ (knowing how I've set up my Android phone).

> in fact, the stuff you do to hide yourself makes you *more* unique than
> a rando who blends into the crowd, making it easier to link everything
> together.

Perhaps this is the case but you've yet to mention a single concrete thing
that bolsters your perhaps wholly imaginary belief system yet.

> one way to avoid it is use a custom rom with apps that don't use google
> services, which greatly limits what apps can be used, but even that's
> not a guarantee.

Absolutely, but you still haven't said a thing that I didn't know ten years
ago, where I've set up Android for privacy (which is impossible on iOS).

> oh, and facebook has a shadow profile of you too.

How?
--
It's interesting that nospam's belief system is entirely imaginary.

Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> asked
> And they WERE using private APIs that they were not supposed to be
> using.

And yet, the fact remains, these graphical debuggers were not only popular
on iOS when they were allowed by Apple, but they exist on _all_ other
platforms other than the crippled (by Apple) iOS operating system.

Those facts blow a huge hole through _all_ your childish excuses in your
desperation to explain why it's only iOS that is such a crippled toy OS.

In article <sgmlsm$17vo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> I am so crippled that I can't do even the simplest of basic things.

ftfy

In article <sgmn12$1i0f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> > because they're a lot smarter than you are (which isn't saying much).
>
> Tell me how Google is tracking me, given I've set up my Android phone for
> privacy

you leak data in all sorts of ways and you can't block all of it, even
if you knew what they all were.

it's not just your phone either.

three years ago, google bought credit card transaction data to link to
online ads:

<https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/30/17801880/google-mastercard-data-onli
ne-ads-offline-purchase-history-privacy>
Google reportedly paid Mastercard millions of dollars for data on
what people have been buying. It used that data to build a tool for
advertisers that would break down whether people who had clicked
online ads later went on to purchase a product at a physical retail
store.

> (which is _impossible_ to do on iOS).

it's very possible, but like android, it won't ever be 100%.

you just don't know how nor do you have any interest in learning.

you just want to bash and troll.

> > oh, and facebook has a shadow profile of you too.
>
> How?

the most common way is facebook tracking pixels, which many web sites
use.

they can easily be blocked, along with the more drastic measure of
blocking facebook properties entirely, but that only prevents adding
more data going forward to what they already have. what exists will
remain.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> Tell me how Google is tracking me, given I've set up my Android phone for
>> privacy
>
> you leak data in all sorts of ways and you can't block all of it, even
> if you knew what they all were.

In other words, you're all bullshit. Nothing specific. No facts.
You're so desperate to defend the crippled iOS that you stop at nothing.

You'll defend the utter lack of privacy on your iOS device, to the death.

> it's very possible, but like android, it won't ever be 100%.

On Android, you don't need _any_ account to the mother ship, and you can
_still_ easily install the _same_ apps as those who have set up an account.

On the iPhone, that kind of privacy is impossible (sans jailbreaking).

> you just don't know how nor do you have any interest in learning.

Hehhehheh...
That's step _one_ of your 7 basic responses to defend Apple to the death.

1. nospam will first claim he told the user how already many times;
2. When that fails, nospam claims his imaginary functionality exists;
3. When that fails, nospam blames everyone else for the missing capability;
4. When that fails, nospam says the developers didn't do what they should;
5. When that fails, nospam tells you that you should write your own apps;
6. When that fails, nospam accuses you of being too stupid to do so;
7. When that fails, nospam resorts to an infinity of ad hominem attacks.

> you just want to bash and troll.

What's interesting is I speak facts which you always call trolls.
You _hate_ facts that show how crippled the iPhone is in privacy.

The kind of privacy available on Android is _impossible_ on the iPhone.
Privacy like using the real FOSS Tor Browser Bundle doesn't exist on iOS.

Notice that nospam _never_ has facts when he defends Apple to the death.
Fact: The Tor Browser Bundle is on _all_ operating systems _other_ than iOS.

*Why is it that _only iOS_ is missing the Tor Browser Bundle privacy tool?*

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> ftfy

Hehhehheh...
That's step 7 of your 7 basic responses to defend your completely imaginary
belief system about Apple products, to the death.

1. nospam will first claim he told the user how already many times;
2. When that fails, nospam claims his imaginary functionality exists;
3. When that fails, nospam blames everyone else for the missing capability;
4. When that fails, nospam says the developers didn't do what they should;
5. When that fails, nospam tells you that you should write your own apps;
6. When that fails, nospam accuses you of being too stupid to do so;
7. When that fails, nospam resorts to an infinity of ad hominem attacks.

And yet, the facts always remain incontrovertible...
*Of all common consumer OS's, only iOS lacks this basic common capability.*

On 30/08/2021 12.06, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> asked
>> Rationalize all you want.
>
> The rationale, whether you like it or not, is how the five common consumer
> operating systems work (Linux, Windows, Android, iOS, & macOS).
>
> Specifically why _one_ of them is _always_ crippled compared to the rest.
>
>> Cross-posts to unrelated newsgroups have been plonked.
>
> Plonk as you like but stop your repeated trolling for attention please.

Hello, Arlen!

> Your responses should at least try to flesh out the topic at hand for all.

Not interested.

>
> Otherwise you're no better than common YourName, GoodGuy, & Snit trolls.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <sgn4n4$1ed4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

>
> On Android, you don't need _any_ account to the mother ship,

that makes no difference whatsoever. in fact, it makes it easier to
track you since you're the oddball who doesn't have a google account.

> and you can
> _still_ easily install the _same_ apps as those who have set up an account.

except that most of those apps have analytics, usually google.

you're leaving a trail which can *easily* be followed.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:54:00 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/31/2021 12:03 PM, Michael Logies wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:01:06 -0400, Alan Baker
>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> Years ago the situation was different, such apps were available. But
>>>> Apple killed them in its store, claiming, they would use an
>>>> undocumented API.
>>>
>>> Cite, please!
>>
>> https://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/03/apple-bans-wifi-stumbler-iphone-apps-blames-use-of-private-apis.html
>
>Good find. But what is still unclear is why Apple just didn't document
>and publish the necessary APIs.

Apple did the opposite: When the apps had been removed from the app
store, they still worked for a while, perhaps a year or so. Then Apple
changed the private API with an iOS update, making the apps useless.

I don`t know why Apple did this. Perhaps Apple wanted to avoid the
impression, that iOS-devices could be used as a hacking tool. Or Apple
has tried to disguise the strength or weakness of the WLAN building
blocks of its iOS devices, because these apps can also be used to
compare the WLAN sensitivity of different smartphones.

On 2021-09-01 8:44 a.m., Michael Logies wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:54:00 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/2021 12:03 PM, Michael Logies wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:01:06 -0400, Alan Baker
>>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Years ago the situation was different, such apps were available. But
>>>>> Apple killed them in its store, claiming, they would use an
>>>>> undocumented API.
>>>>
>>>> Cite, please!
>>>
>>> https://www.iphonehacks.com/2010/03/apple-bans-wifi-stumbler-iphone-apps-blames-use-of-private-apis.html
>>
>> Good find. But what is still unclear is why Apple just didn't document
>> and publish the necessary APIs.
>
> Apple did the opposite: When the apps had been removed from the app
> store, they still worked for a while, perhaps a year or so. Then Apple
> changed the private API with an iOS update, making the apps useless.
>
> I don`t know why Apple did this. Perhaps Apple wanted to avoid the
> impression, that iOS-devices could be used as a hacking tool. Or Apple
> has tried to disguise the strength or weakness of the WLAN building
> blocks of its iOS devices, because these apps can also be used to
> compare the WLAN sensitivity of different smartphones.
>

Did it ever occur to you that private APIs are private so that Apple can
change them?

On 2021-08-31 9:54 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>> Remove the headphone jack and you're also removing the
>> analog connector which doesn't provide the sound quality enthusiasts
>> desire.
>
> It's a handheld device.
> You want sound quality, you're not going to get it in a tinny tiny speaker.

Not from a tiny speaker in the phone but definitely in the speakers of a
decent set of headphones. If the connection is digital and the media
file is lossless, you're getting much better quality than an analog
connection and a lossy media file at the very least. Whether this is
important to you or not is one matter, but Apple knows that there is a
market out there for greater sound quality the same way there was a
market for 4k video rather than mere 1080p.

>>> Never having an sd card slot? That's innovation?
>>> No FM radio? That's innovation?
>>
>> I didn't know about the FM radio omission
>
> We use FM radio a lot in the mountains, but only on Android phones.
> It's yet another functionality that is _impossible_ on iPhones.
>
> Anyone who doesn't realized the iPhone is a cripple only plays games.

I don't use the FM radio much but that mostly has to do with my lack of
interest in the advertisements they play. Admittedly though, if I were
looking to follow a sports team and the local radio stations were
calling the match, I'd enjoy this functionality but I think that Apple
users end up just downloading an application which carries _all_ of the
local radio stations in the world and simply stream that. It uses your
data, obviously, but it's a solution.

>> but the SD card part I can
>> understand if what they're trying to sell is fat transmission rates in
>> their storage.
>
> The lack of the standard sdcard slot helps Apple sell more stuff.

Indeed, such as a 128GB model of an otherwise identical 64GB model. For
the extra storage, you'll pay more than you would if you simply inserted
an SD card.

>> I prefer the SD card approach myself though which is one
>> of the reasons I go for Android in general. I am not too concerned about
>> storage speed but rather having sufficient storage.
>
> Having the card is like having a doctor & lawyer in the family.
> You don't need them all the time - but when you need them - it helps.
>
> Again, the lack of the sdcard is another reason why the iPhone is a cripple.

Other manufacturers are taking the Apple path in this respect though. I
notice that if I were to buy a new phone today, many of them aren't
upgradable in any way in addition to the standard battery not being
removable. It seems that Apple is influential enough for companies to
copy their bad and anti-customer practises.

>>> Apple drastically limits what the iPhone can do; Google can't.
>>> It's that simple.
>>
>> I have no doubt about that at all.
>
> Apple has no edge on technology (either hardware or software).
> I'm being generous as Apple actually _sucks_ at both hardware & software.
> But let's be nice to Apple & admit they have no edge in either.
>
> So why is the iPhone so crippled?
> The reason is simple.
>
> Apple cripples it. Google can't.

It's a selling point for Android that it isn't crippled the same way
that it was a selling point for the Apple ][ that it offered
expandability when the competition didn't.

>> For cell phone uses, I never saw the
>> iPhone option as being superior to what Android manufacturers are
>> offering. I notice that the people who opt for Apple's hardware are
>> usually people who don't understand their computers or the operating
>> system and simply don't want to understand them.
>
> Most iPhone owners are scared witless.
> They are desperate for someone (anyone) to make them _feel_ safe.
>
> They also want to feel stylish (as if a phone could possibly do that).
> And they want to feel they belong to a special clique (which they do).
>
>>> Apple doesn't innovate - Apple _advertises_ that they do.
>>> But Apple has _never_ made a chip that wasn't unfixably flawed too.
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+unfixable+chip+flaws
>>
>> I was not aware of this one. I have to admit that it makes the M1 chip
>> look pretty damned bad.
>
> Apple can't design an SOC without built-in unfixable severe flaws.
> Remember, Apple's R&D is nothing compared to Apple's huge marketing arm.
>
> Apple has never sufficiently tested _any_ of its products.
> It's sufficient to just _say_ they're tested.
>
> They _all_ have horrid unfixable built-in security flaws.
>
>>> Try to do _any_ of that debugging with the crippled iPhone.
>>
>> Well, I've clearly hit a nerve. However, you just made me a lot better
>> about being using an Android user.
>
> All that wifi & cellular debugging is _impossible_ with the iPhone.
> To own an iPhone is to own a crippled device.
>
> The reason is simple.
> Apple cripples it. Google can't.

I can't disagree.

--
@RabidHussar

On 9/1/2021 5:44 AM, Michael Logies wrote:

<snip>

> Apple did the opposite: When the apps had been removed from the app
> store, they still worked for a while, perhaps a year or so. Then Apple
> changed the private API with an iOS update, making the apps useless.
>
> I don`t know why Apple did this. Perhaps Apple wanted to avoid the
> impression, that iOS-devices could be used as a hacking tool. Or Apple
> has tried to disguise the strength or weakness of the WLAN building
> blocks of its iOS devices, because these apps can also be used to
> compare the WLAN sensitivity of different smartphones.

Those are possibilities I suppose.

I don't think that the first one was likely since any app that could be
used as a hacking tool could just be banned from the App Store.

The second one makes more sense. Remember what Apple did when they had
either Intel or Qualcomm modems in the iPhone 7, 8, and X models? The
Qualcomm models were faster, so they throttled their performance so
owners of the Intel models would not be upset that the Qualcomm models
were faster, see
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/11/19/apple-confirmed-limiting-iphone-7-qualcomm-modem-to-keep-performance-on-par-with-intel-chip>.
So it's possible, as you said, that they didn't want people comparing
the WLAN sensitivity of iPhones to other phones.

I'm thinking that their philosophy was "the iPhone is a consumer
electronics product for the masses, we don't want it being used as test
equipment, or for any commercial, industrial, other use." This could
also be why they left out support for some Bluetooth protocols commonly
used in industrial equipment, why they don't include ANT support, and
why they don't allow apps to access NMEA (GPS) data; these are all
things that have enabled very useful Android applications but (other
than ANT) that support more specialized applications. The workarounds to
these iOS limitations require additional hardware and greater expense so
those needing those capabilities go the Android route. Then when an iOS
user needs those capabilities they post on forums asking how to get them!

In article <sssuig91450helst20v6fjpn8qurrgo7er@4ax.com>, Michael Logies
<logies@t-online.de> wrote:

> When the apps had been removed from the app
> store, they still worked for a while, perhaps a year or so. Then Apple
> changed the private API with an iOS update, making the apps useless.

the apis were private and subject to change at any time, for any
reason. that's why they're called private apis. this is not a new
concept and not unique to apple.

public apis are fully supported. that's what public apis means. if for
some reason they need to change as things evolve, the apis move to
deprecated status for a few years so that developers have ample time to
update their apps for whatever changes have been made, usually to newer
public apis, before the old apis are retired. that is also not new nor
unique to apple.

> I don`t know why Apple did this. Perhaps Apple wanted to avoid the
> impression, that iOS-devices could be used as a hacking tool. Or Apple
> has tried to disguise the strength or weakness of the WLAN building
> blocks of its iOS devices, because these apps can also be used to
> compare the WLAN sensitivity of different smartphones.

or none of the above.

your link does not tell the full story.

there is no conspiracy.

private apis changed. that's all.

In article <6%LXI.7940$j52.6390@fx18.iad>, RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar>
wrote:

> I don't use the FM radio much but that mostly has to do with my lack of
> interest in the advertisements they play. Admittedly though, if I were
> looking to follow a sports team and the local radio stations were
> calling the match, I'd enjoy this functionality but I think that Apple
> users end up just downloading an application which carries _all_ of the
> local radio stations in the world and simply stream that. It uses your
> data, obviously, but it's a solution.

it's not just apple users. streaming audio apps are *very* popular,
regardless of device, and not just for radio stations, but also music
services such as spotify as well as podcasts.

also, phones with an fm radio require using the wired headphones as an
antenna, which means it won't work with bluetooth headphones, nor will
it work when using the internal speakers. it's *extremely* limited.

In article <sgo2l5$e0d$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Remember what Apple did when they had
> either Intel or Qualcomm modems in the iPhone 7, 8, and X models? The
> Qualcomm models were faster, so they throttled their performance so
> owners of the Intel models would not be upset that the Qualcomm models
> were faster,

that's standard industry practice with multi-sourced parts so that all
devices are identical in performance.

it's also not a speed anyone would ever reach in the real world.

> I'm thinking that their philosophy was "the iPhone is a consumer
> electronics product for the masses, we don't want it being used as test
> equipment, or for any commercial, industrial, other use."

that is pure nonsense. there are numerous such apps on ios, some of
which are *only* ios.

> This could
> also be why they left out support for some Bluetooth protocols commonly
> used in industrial equipment,

they did no such thing.

it was in fact, the opposite.

apple was first to support bluetooth le, with android taking a couple
of years to catch up, first with the hardware, and then another couple
of years for bluetooth le support in android itself to be reliable
enough to ship products. at the time, i was deeply involved in such a
product.

that meant that for several *years*, there were *many* bluetooth le
devices that only worked on ios.

> why they don't include ANT support,

ant is dead. actually, to be more accurate, it was never alive.

matter/thread is the standard that the industry has adopted, and apple
is as usual, among the first to support it, already included in several
of apple's products. as usual, android support is coming soon.

> and
> why they don't allow apps to access NMEA (GPS) data;

anyone who wants to use nmea isn't going to be using a phone as their
gps.

> these are all
> things that have enabled very useful Android applications

not true.

again, apple was first with bluetooth le and matter/thread, enabling
very useful applications that are impossible on any other platform.

On 2021-09-01 10:27 a.m., sms wrote:
> On 9/1/2021 5:44 AM, Michael Logies wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Apple did the opposite: When the apps had been removed from the app
>> store, they still worked for a while, perhaps a year or so. Then Apple
>> changed the private API with an iOS update, making the apps useless.
>>
>> I don`t know why Apple did this. Perhaps Apple wanted to avoid the
>> impression, that iOS-devices could be used as a hacking tool. Or Apple
>> has tried to disguise the strength or weakness of the WLAN building
>> blocks of its iOS devices, because these apps can also be used to
>> compare the WLAN sensitivity of different smartphones.
>
> Those are possibilities I suppose.
>
> I don't think that the first one was likely since  any app that could be
> used as a hacking tool could just be banned from the App Store.
>
> The second one makes more sense. Remember what Apple did when they had
> either Intel or Qualcomm modems in the iPhone 7, 8, and X models? The
> Qualcomm models were faster, so they throttled their performance so
> owners of the Intel models would not be upset that the Qualcomm models
> were faster, see
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/11/19/apple-confirmed-limiting-iphone-7-qualcomm-modem-to-keep-performance-on-par-with-intel-chip>.
> So it's possible, as you said, that they didn't want people comparing
> the WLAN sensitivity of iPhones to other phones.
>
> I'm thinking that their philosophy was "the iPhone is a consumer
> electronics product for the masses, we don't want it being used as test
> equipment, or for any commercial, industrial, other use." This could
> also be why they left out support for some Bluetooth protocols commonly
> used in industrial equipment, why they don't include ANT support, and
> why they don't allow apps to access NMEA (GPS) data; these are all
> things that have enabled very useful Android applications but (other
> than ANT) that support more specialized applications. The workarounds to
> these iOS limitations require additional hardware and greater expense so
> those needing those capabilities go the Android route. Then when an iOS
> user needs those capabilities they post on forums asking how to get them!

'and why they don't allow apps to access NMEA (GPS) data'

Well, how about this:

'NMEA client and server.

Read GPS Data from core location ( or through direct connection for
supported GPS, currently DUAL XGPS150 / 160 are supported ) and forward
to other apps/devices through NMEA protocol ( supported by many apps );
an internal NMEA client automatically connects to NMEA Server if active
( or it can be used to test and display data from other NMEA sources,
disabling internal server and configurating it )

NMEA Fps supports both TCP and UDP clients ( configurable ) . Note that
UDP , for protocol limits, will work only when iPhone is connected to a
wifi router

Current gps position cab be shown as qrcode, enlarged and shared

This app allows reading GPS info from devices that lack of an internal
GPS ( such as iPod and iPad wifi ), and from your desktop pc, simply
connecting to the device running NMEA Gps app; you can share the *same*
gps info (possibly derived from an external GPS) among multiple devices
( even if they lack of an internal GPS); useful for regatta app , all
members will get same info.'

On 2021-09-01 10:53 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <6%LXI.7940$j52.6390@fx18.iad>, RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't use the FM radio much but that mostly has to do with my lack of
>> interest in the advertisements they play. Admittedly though, if I were
>> looking to follow a sports team and the local radio stations were
>> calling the match, I'd enjoy this functionality but I think that Apple
>> users end up just downloading an application which carries _all_ of the
>> local radio stations in the world and simply stream that. It uses your
>> data, obviously, but it's a solution.
>
> it's not just apple users. streaming audio apps are *very* popular,
> regardless of device, and not just for radio stations, but also music
> services such as spotify as well as podcasts.
>
> also, phones with an fm radio require using the wired headphones as an
> antenna, which means it won't work with bluetooth headphones, nor will
> it work when using the internal speakers. it's *extremely* limited.

This last paragraph is definitely a fact as is the popularity of
streaming. If you listen to lots of music and spend a ton on albums,
it's a given that subscribing to a streaming service makes a lot more
sense than spending $100 or more every month for albums. Those also take
space on your phone whereas streaming doesn't.

However, not everyone uses Bluetooth headphones or internal speakers to
listen to their music. For people who still like their things
old-school, the FM radio functionality is fairly neat. Apple users have
no use for it but I am among those who'd rather plug an analog set of
earphones and listen to the local broadcast without using data.

--
@RabidHussar

On 9/1/2021 8:14 AM, RabidHussar wrote:

<snip>

> However, not everyone uses Bluetooth headphones or internal speakers to
> listen to their music. For people who still like their things
> old-school, the FM radio functionality is fairly neat. Apple users have
> no use for it but I am among those who'd rather plug an analog set of
> earphones and listen to the local broadcast without using data.

I did see one phone recently that advertised that they had an FM radio
but did not require headphones for an antenna. It was from that famous
company Umidigi <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfhOpGbq1VQ>. I had
never even heard of this company until last month, when a right-wing
individual was reselling a $120 Umidigi phone for nearly $500, labeling
it a "Freedom Phone"
<https://www.xda-developers.com/freedom-phone-overpriced-smartphone/>
and pre-installing some fake news apps that were banned by Google (and
Apple).

When data was really expensive the FM radio feature was a lot more
useful than it is now, though occasionally it's still a nice feature to
have. Of course if you're in your car you already have an FM radio.

I think that very few people still use a radio for music, it's more for
news and sports.

In case of emergency, an OTA battery powered radio is essential, and
should be part of any emergency kit.