Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches
& protection from dust & water
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand
at least 800 charge and discharge cycles
while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations
for producers to make critical spare parts available
within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after
the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)
5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers
to any software or firmware needed for the replacement
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara
<IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote:
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring?
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches
& protection from dust & water
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand
at least 800 charge and discharge cycles
while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations
for producers to make critical spare parts available
within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after
the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)
5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers
to any software or firmware needed for the replacement
Will these regulations apply in the UK?
On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara
<IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote:
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches
& protection from dust & water
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand
at least 800 charge and discharge cycles
while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations
for producers to make critical spare parts available
within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after
the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)
5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers
to any software or firmware needed for the replacement
Will these regulations apply in the UK?
As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become
a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the
manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every
different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as
possible of every product the same world-wide.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara
<IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote:
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches
& protection from dust & water
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand
at least 800 charge and discharge cycles
while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations
for producers to make critical spare parts available
within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after
the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)
5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers
to any software or firmware needed for the replacement
Will these regulations apply in the UK?
As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become
a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the
manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every
different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as
possible of every product the same world-wide.
Well yes and no. The rules requiring Apple to allow third party App stores
do not apply to GB and you can’t access them in GB. (I’m being very careful
to exclude NI as I’m not sure how it works out for them). I pass no comment on the rights and wrongs of such App stores, just pointing out that the EU and GB markets are not entirely coincident.
Take the rule for battery life. If your phone battery breaches the 800
cycle 80% rule in the EU you might have rights to get the battery replaced free of charge, and you might not have those rights in GB.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:04:03 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara
<IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote:
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches
& protection from dust & water
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand
at least 800 charge and discharge cycles
while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations
for producers to make critical spare parts available
within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after
the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)
5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers
to any software or firmware needed for the replacement
Will these regulations apply in the UK?
As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become
a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the
manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every
different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as
possible of every product the same world-wide.
Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors
from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK.
I take your
point going forward about the de facto standard, but my question was
whether the new regs would apply de jure.
Apple may well continue to sell some existing production
in the UK but as already said it is unlikely they will make special UK
versions of new hardware.
Definitely true. The UK (or more likely GB) won't get specific models, but, as we're already seeing, will still get any models which do not comply with the EU regs .
Will these regulations apply in the UK?
As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >>>> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the
manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every
different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as
possible of every product the same world-wide.
Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is
explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors
from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK.
I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old
stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected to
prevail.
Apple have removed the iphone 14 and SE from sale in the EU and Northern Ireland due to the regulations coming into effect on 30th December.
Both models are still available in the rest of the UK.
Chris wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:20:20 -0000 (UTC) :
Apple may well continue to sell some existing production in the UK
but as already said it is unlikely they will make special UK versions
of new hardware.
Definitely true. The UK (or more likely GB) won't get specific models,
but,
as we're already seeing, will still get any models which do not comply
with
the EU regs .
Bear in mind that no iPhone older than the iPhone 15 meets the bare minimum battery lifetime charge cycle EU standard, while Android phones double it.
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can’t find an exact date. Not just phones either.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), TweedI don’t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A user >replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable? >>>>Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can?t find an exact date. Not just phones either.
Electric vehicles?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), TweedUnlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), TweedI don?t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A user >>> replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable? >>>>>>Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can?t find an exact date. Not just phones either.
Electric vehicles?
It might improve the residual value though.
of a house battery.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), TweedUnlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost >of a house battery.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), TweedI don?t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A user
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can?t find an exact date. Not just phones either.
Electric vehicles?
replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
It might improve the residual value though.
Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
idea very quickly.
In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), TweedUnlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost >> >of a house battery.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), TweedI don?t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A user
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can?t find an exact date. Not just phones either.
Electric vehicles?
replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
It might improve the residual value though.
Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
idea very quickly.
EV batteries weigh about 200kg. Consumers aren't going to be changing them >because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor >tables). If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is >not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions. In >no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper >blades.
Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery
- just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else, >but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software). There is >no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly >bespoke.
On 05 Jan 2025 20:19:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:Electric vehicles?
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can?t find an exact date. Not just phones either. >>>>>>>
I don?t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A >>>>>> user replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
It might improve the residual value though.
Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the
cost of a house battery.
Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
idea very quickly.
EV batteries weigh about 200kg. Consumers aren't going to be changing them >> because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor
tables). If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is >> not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions. In >> no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper
blades.
Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery >> - just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else, >> but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software). There is >> no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly >> bespoke.
That puts paid to the idea of having a standard battery for all the
cars and swapping them from underneath at the filling station using a mechanical arm as was suggested at one time :-)
On 05 Jan 2025 20:19:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:That puts paid to the idea of having a standard battery for all the
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), TweedUnlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), TweedI don?t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A user
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:Electric vehicles?
Pamela wrote:
Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en
2027, though I can?t find an exact date. Not just phones either. >>>>>>>
replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
It might improve the residual value though.
of a house battery.
Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
idea very quickly.
EV batteries weigh about 200kg. Consumers aren't going to be changing them >> because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor
tables). If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is >> not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions. In >> no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper
blades.
Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery >> - just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else, >> but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software). There is >> no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly >> bespoke.
cars and swapping them from underneath at the filling station using a mechanical arm as was suggested at one time :-)
On 2025-01-03 11:03, Andrew wrote:
Will these regulations apply in the UK?
As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will
become
a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the
manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >>>>>> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >>>>>> possible of every product the same world-wide.
Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is >>>>> explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors >>>>> from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK.
I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old
stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected
to prevail.
Apple have removed the iphone 14 and SE from sale in the EU and Northern >>> Ireland due to the regulations coming into effect on 30th December.
Both models are still available in the rest of the UK.
Let's play, "Count the unsupported assertions"!
While Android phones typically *double* the EU minimum standards...
Unsupported assertion!
Bear in mind that Apple is cognizant that their use of cheap batteries in
the iPhone means they'll have to label those same phones as very clearly
NOT meeting the upcoming 2025 EU battery charge-cycle lifetime standards.
Unsupported assertion!
Apple has always cheaped out on batteries and hardware (such as RAM).
Two unsupported assertions!
Now Apple's addiction to cheap components returns to bite them back.
Not only has Apple always been cheap on batteries, but on RAM also.
Which means only the latest iPhones can run the memory intensive AI apps.
Another unsupported assertion!
In other words, even the very few iPhones that "can" be sold in the EU
after June of this year still *barely* squeak by due to cheap components.
Another!
It's just more evidence of the obvious maxim: *Apple hates you*
Unsupported assertion and obvious bullshit on top of it!
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones- and-tablets_en
On 2025-01-03 06:09, Isaac Montara wrote:
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring?
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/
smartphones- and-tablets_en
I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
??
I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
Carlos E.R. wrote:
I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
When I saw "Isaac Montara" the needle on my
new-arlen-nym-o-meter started wobbling
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
I read it as "EU new labelling regulations"
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:37:36 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
When I saw "Isaac Montara" the needle on my
new-arlen-nym-o-meter started wobbling
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
I read it as "EU new labelling regulations"
It did not take me long to work this out either.
On 2025-01-08 12:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-03 06:09, Isaac Montara wrote:Bad typing. The OP's right hand was one key to the right of the correct
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are
faring?
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/
smartphones- and-tablets_en
I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
??
key for a few letters.
"Re: EI mew ;abeling ..."
"Re: EU new labeling ..."
"I" is one to the right of "U", etc.
Hi Andy,
Happy New Year!
Just respond to the value of the body of the message - not the headers.
I read everything on this newsgroup, Andy, that you write. Everything.
Also everything from Arno. Frank. Gelato. Bev. Steve. Jeff. Zaidy. etc. on the Android newsgroup, but far fewer on the Apple newsgroups, although I
read everything from badgolferman & Steve, who had been posted to Usenet
for decades just as I have been. I even read what Jolly Roger posts,
believe it or not, as he's the quintessential Apple poster of all time.
Probably 80% of the Android posters (like micky) know nothing and worse, can't learn anything, while it's far worse than that for the Apple trolls.
But I have each poster well under control with a system that scores them.
I long ago added that scoring system which marks morons as already read.
But it continually adds points to your posts & to those of others above.
Not so much the rest.
It ignores posts from Alan & Joerg but also subtracts points from others.
It's constantly keeping track of the intelligence level of each poster. You're intelligent but most people on this newsgroup are low-IQ morons.
For example, when you posted that Marcel wrote NetGuard, I hit the macro to bump your score, just as it did when you kept abreast of Marcel's
successful OAUTH2 additions to FairEmail; but it bumps you down every time you call me a spammer (which you sometimes do, much to your discredit).
While you provide valuable insight, I've likely provided many times more
than all the rest of you combined, Andy, to this newsgroup, in the form of knowledge about how Android actually works & in the form of tutorials.
But I still learn a lot of from the likes of those few listed above, Andy.
So there's value for me in this newsgroup, even as I deplore the morons.
Around every new year the script triggers, Andy, for privacy reasons, where
I may know privacy probably better than all the rest of you do, combined.
Periodically, the nyms change, as do the time zones, the posting hosts, the nntp servers, the newsreader, etc., all of which is done for privacy Andy.
You are smart enough to know that keeping the same headers for two decades
or more isn't the best thing if you want to retain some privacy on the net.
Most people are completely clueless about the basics of privacy, Andy.
Maybe not you. But almost everyone else on this newsgroup has sacrificed their privacy (which is fine) but then they denigrate others that don't.
I don't hide who I am in the gift of the value of the body of the article. It's only in the meaningless wrapping paper surrounding that body, Andy.
With that in mind, if it takes anyone more than a few seconds to figure out that it's the same detailed annotated images, the same phone even, the same location, the same exacting super-detailed always precise information,
etc., they that just means they are low-IQ utter morons, as I never change.
I'm not hiding from you. I don't even try.
I'm hiding the headers from robotic data-collection engines.
It's all done with a process that uses telnet and scripts written years
ago, thanks mostly to Marek (and a few others), mostly on the Linux ngs.
It randomizes the nntp news server (although I can keep it if I like); and
it randomizes the VPN IP address, time posted & other meaningless headers.
The hardest part was the algorithm for the randomized dictionary swaps.
Even Vanguard & Frank helped write the scripts, although neither of them
knew that's what they were doing, I'm sure, as the scripts are complex.
Then it was ported to Windows and that's where the automation proceeds. Telnet does most of the work. The headers are dictionary lookups.
It used to be that the headers randomly copied other nyms from other newsgroups and other headers from different posts, so as to mix things up, but then it accidentally picked up people here so I cut that part out.
Now it just picks everything from a set of a half-dozen dictionaries.
I don't even know what nym is being used as it doesn't matter the nym.
Often I don't even know what person I'm responding to as what matters is
not their pedigree but what they said in the post that contained value.
My editor is "Gvim" and the user agent is telnet if that matters to you.
Only fools care more about the wrapping paper than the gift being provided.
In short...
Anyone who says "I figured you out" is proclaiming that they're a moron, especially if it takes more than one post for them to figure that out.
Let me know what the nym is for this post as I don't even see it, so I
won't know what it is until *after* this post is reflected in my feed.
& 5! Hi, Arlen!
Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 9 Jan 2025 20:46:35 +0100 :
& 5! Hi, Arlen!
I repeat, verbatim...
"Anyone who says 'I figured you out' is proclaiming that they're a moron"
It's no wonder your IQ score is highly negative, Carlos.
Not reading the rest.
on Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:01:32 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Not reading the rest.
Then you should be able to figure my posts out just from the response
showing what I think of the lack of value you impart in every reply.
Anyone who claims "I found you" is no different than the mentally
handicapped person who says the same when finding the not hidden egg.
That you think I'm "hiding" from you shows how low your IQ really is
when I change nothing but the meaningless wrapping paper even after being
on this newsgroup almost since its inception.
I periodically change the header wrapping paper for the aggregators.
Not for you - although you're so stupid - maybe it does hide from you.
What I find funny is when you low-IQ morons claim you "finally" found what was never hidden in the first place - as it shows how DK you really are.
on Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:01:32 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Not reading the rest.
Then you should be able to figure my posts out just from the response
showing what I think of the lack of value you impart in every reply.
Not reading
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 04:17:07 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Not reading
The point is you deserved what you got for your moronically triumphant claiming of "*I found it!*" (as if it was hidden) just like the handicapped children always do when they "find" the NOT-hidden Easter egg, Carlos.
On 2025-01-09 21:49, Marion wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 9 Jan 2025 20:46:35 +0100 :
& 5! Hi, Arlen!
I repeat, verbatim...
"Anyone who says 'I figured you out' is proclaiming that they're a moron"
It's no wonder your IQ score is highly negative, Carlos.
Insults again. Not reading the rest.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-01-09 21:49, Marion wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 9 Jan 2025 20:46:35 +0100 :
& 5! Hi, Arlen!
I repeat, verbatim...
"Anyone who says 'I figured you out' is proclaiming that they're a moron" >>>
It's no wonder your IQ score is highly negative, Carlos.
Insults again. Not reading the rest.
Don't worry about it.
In this short subthread he both praised and insulted me, while I have
not responded to him, not now and not in a long time. Normally he has
some bogus 'explanation' for this inconsistent behaviour of his, but
even that can not apply in this case.
So if *someone* shouldn't be saying anything about IQs, ...
[From this subthread:]
"I read everything on this newsgroup, Andy, that you write. Everything.
Also everything from Arno. Frank. Gelato. Bev. Steve. Jeff. Zaidy. etc. on
the Android newsgroup
...
Even Vanguard & Frank helped write the scripts, although neither of them
knew that's what they were doing, I'm sure, as the scripts are
complex."
But then:
"Note that you guys consistently finger people who are NOT me, all the time, as me, where I chuckle in mirth (especially those like Frank Slootweg who think they're utter geniuses but who are so wrong that it's amusing to me)."
BTW, he never mentioned any specifics on this and I didn't get any complaints from these - allegedly - 'wrong' people.
In this short subthread he both praised and insulted me,
while I have
not responded to him, not now and not in a long time. Normally he has
some bogus 'explanation' for this inconsistent behaviour of his, but
even that can not apply in this case.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 20:29:20 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Certainly not justified with "privacy".
Carlos,
You're a moron if you can't distinguish between a header & a body.
Certainly not justified with "privacy".
Not reading
I'm extremely consistent.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 22:42:04 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Not reading
Good.
Maybe you've finally learned your lesson that to scream out "*I found it!*" when it was never hidden in the first place, is the height of absurdity.
Who is *that* stupid to proclaim they finally found what was never hidden. Answer: You.
Maybe you will learn that you are stupid insulting people
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 03:18:04 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Maybe you will learn that you are stupid insulting people
OK. Let's run a simple empirical experiment, shall we?
a. You stop wrongfully accusing me of hiding in the message body
b. And I'll stop proving that you're a moron by pointing to what you do
How's that for a good experiment, Carlos?
A. You immediately stop insulting me (which is what started this tangent).
B. Then I'll stop responding to your insults (because they won't be there).
Deal?
That way we can get back to kind-hearted purposefully helpful posts.
On 2025-01-11 06:18, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 03:18:04 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Maybe you will learn that you are stupid insulting people
OK. Let's run a simple empirical experiment, shall we?
a. You stop wrongfully accusing me of hiding in the message body
But you do hide. You are constantly changing names in order to confuse
people in thinking you are a new guy instead of old Arlen and evading
kill file filters.
b. And I'll stop proving that you're a moron by pointing to what you do
Everybody knows you lie and insult when people do not agree with what
you say.
How's that for a good experiment, Carlos?
A. You immediately stop insulting me (which is what started this tangent).
I have never insulted you. Post the quote.
B. Then I'll stop responding to your insults (because they won't be there). >>
Deal?
That way we can get back to kind-hearted purposefully helpful posts.
How I react to you depends on what YOU say, Frank.
I'm extremely consistent.
I tried to find one of your tutorials, by using, as you posted it, the pictures name, its description, and even your old "arlen holder" nym. None of the search engines I tried returned a hit. Your posting "for posterity" of your "tutorials" seems to have had a very short shelf life...
I'm trying to get back to kind-hearted writing of helpful tutorials, so
it's not good that people like you & Carlos whine like little girls here.
Your whole life you've been told you are stupid; that statement shows why.Same with Carlos. You *hate* that you're stupid. So you blame me for that.
All you can do is whine & cry that everyone is smarter than you are.
Please reply with just one purposefully helpful tutorial you wrote.
Rudy: Same with you. Just one purposefully helpful tutorial you wrote.
Now can we get back to writing kind-hearted helpful tutorials please?
Also, its *you* who measures someones worth by the number of tutorials they write. I certainly don't.
Can we get back to helping people learn how to use their mobile devices?
Please reply with just one purposefully helpful tutorial you've written.
"Marion":
Can we get back to helping people learn how to use their mobile
devices?
Ah yes, the famous "I don't like this conversation anymore" evasion
attempt. ...etc.
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic?
All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 21:31:33 +0100, R.Wieser wrote :
Also, its *you* who measures someones worth by the number of tutorials they >> write. I certainly don't.
Can we get back to helping people learn how to use their mobile devices? Please reply with just one purposefully helpful tutorial you've written. Thanks!
R.Wieser:
"Marion":
Can we get back to helping people learn how to use their mobile
devices?
Ah yes, the famous "I don't like this conversation anymore" evasion
attempt. ...etc.
I would certainly welcome an end to all this hate talk.
As far as I can see, 'Marion' has no evil intentions, and everyone has
his peculiarities.
R.Wieser:
"Marion":
Can we get back to helping people learn how to use their mobile
devices?
Ah yes, the famous "I don't like this conversation anymore" evasion
attempt. ...etc.
I would certainly welcome an end to all this hate talk.
As far as I can see, 'Marion' has no evil intentions, and everyone has
his peculiarities.
On 11.01.25 18:32, Marion wrote:
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic?
All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
Arlen, you are a Troll. Another brain dead identity. Using a girl's name increases your suvrvivablity? *ROTFLSTC*
I would certainly welcome an end to all this hate talk.
As far as I can see, 'Marion' has no evil intentions,
and everyone has his peculiarities.
R.Wieser:
"Marion":
Can we get back to helping people learn how to use their mobile
devices?
Ah yes, the famous "I don't like this conversation anymore" evasion
attempt. ...etc.
I would certainly welcome an end to all this hate talk.
As far as I can see, 'Marion' has no evil intentions, and everyone has
his peculiarities.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 15:27:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
On 2025-01-11 06:18, Marion wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 03:18:04 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Maybe you will learn that you are stupid insulting people
OK. Let's run a simple empirical experiment, shall we?
a. You stop wrongfully accusing me of hiding in the message body
But you do hide. You are constantly changing names in order to confuse
people in thinking you are a new guy instead of old Arlen and evading
kill file filters.
b. And I'll stop proving that you're a moron by pointing to what you do
Everybody knows you lie and insult when people do not agree with what
you say.
How's that for a good experiment, Carlos?
A. You immediately stop insulting me (which is what started this
tangent).
I have never insulted you. Post the quote.
B. Then I'll stop responding to your insults (because they won't be
there).
Deal?
That way we can get back to kind-hearted purposefully helpful posts.
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic?
All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
You can't possibly add even a single iota of on-topic value.
In fact, everything from you *subtracts* value from this thread Carlos.
If you do things that trolls do (like change names), then you are a troll, period.
A rather famous (to me) quote:
"insanity is to do the same thing over-and-over again while expecting
different results".
Right. So why bother with Marion at all?
You are only driving yourself insane.
On 2025-01-13 09:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 11.01.25 18:32, Marion wrote:
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic?
All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
Arlen, you are a Troll. Another brain dead identity. Using a girl's name
increases your suvrvivablity? *ROTFLSTC*
Now be fair!
"Marion" is a name that is occasionally seen for males.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
On 13.01.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-13 09:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 11.01.25 18:32, Marion wrote:
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic? >>>> All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
Arlen, you are a Troll. Another brain dead identity. Using a girl's name >>> increases your suvrvivablity? *ROTFLSTC*
Now be fair!
"Marion" is a name that is occasionally seen for males.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
Hardly ever.
Carlos,
If you do things that trolls do (like change names), then you are a troll, >> period.
If that would be the /only/ thing he would do - so he can't be (automatically) tracked (by unnamed nasties) as he explains it - than I
would consider it to be his peculiarity. Not always handy, but rather harmless. The other behaviours he is exhibiting ? Not so much.
And I don't think he's troll - at least not in the definition that he enjoys the ruckus he's causing. For instance, he's not jumping at stuff a true (malicious or not) troll would have a field day with, goading his opponents even further.
Besides, a troll normaly ends with (good-humoured or not) telling/showing
his opponent(s) how they fell for their goading. Instead arlen here just "fades away".
He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 11:41:
On 13.01.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-13 09:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 11.01.25 18:32, Marion wrote:
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic? >>>>> All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
Arlen, you are a Troll. Another brain dead identity. Using a girl's name >>>> increases your suvrvivablity? *ROTFLSTC*
Now be fair!
"Marion" is a name that is occasionally seen for males.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
Hardly ever.
See that page:
Besides, a troll normaly ends with (good-humoured or not) telling/showing
his opponent(s) how they fell for their goading. Instead arlen here just
"fades away".
We would have to discuss types of trolls :-)
I'm not an expert on that.
He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
is there a header that gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
On 2025-01-13 09:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 11.01.25 18:32, Marion wrote:
Jesus Christ Carlos.
What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic?
All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
Arlen, you are a Troll. Another brain dead identity. Using a girl's name
increases your suvrvivablity? *ROTFLSTC*
Now be fair!
"Marion" is a name that is occasionally seen for males.
Hardly ever.
See that page:
Arno,
Hardly ever.
See that page:
[snip list]
That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in over 9.5 years.
On 14.01.25 13:17, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 11:41:
On 13.01.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
Hardly ever.
See that page:
that proves exactly nothing against *millions of female Marions*
R.Wieser, 2025-01-14 16:11:
Arno,
Hardly ever.
See that page:
[snip list]
That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in over 9.5 years.
Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
listed in Wikipedia. But even I know to men called "Andrea" and one man called "Marion" personally.
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 16:16:
On 14.01.25 13:17, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 11:41:
On 13.01.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
Hardly ever.
See that page:
that proves exactly nothing against *millions of female Marions*
And how many of them are on that Wikipedia page? I count 46. So what
does this mean?
Exactly - nothing. I personally know one man named "Marion" and two
named "Andrea". No, these guys are not that popular to be mentioned in Wikipedia. But assumptions like "hardly any man is ever called Mario or Andrea" is just plain wrong if you don't know it.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
[...]
[About 'Arlen':]
He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
He changes his story/excuses over the years, but for quite some time
he has been claiming that it should be evident from the *body* (not the headers) that it's him and that anyone who can not do that within one or
two posts is stupid, etc..
Of course that argument is invalid and also invalidates most other claims/arguments he makes about his so-called "tutorials".
Identifying him via the headers of his posts is not practical. The
only common factor is that he mostly uses news servers which are
considered more or less rogue, but other people are also using those
servers.
That leaves us with identifying his hundred or so nyms one-by-one and putting them in our (software or/and mental) filters.
Carlos,
Besides, a troll normaly ends with (good-humoured or not) telling/showing >>> his opponent(s) how they fell for their goading. Instead arlen here just >>> "fades away".
We would have to discuss types of trolls :-)
I'm not an expert on that.
Luckily(!), neither am I. :-)
He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
Not that I know of. Although in this case his (chosen by himself) "@facts.com" email addy does give a bit of a hint.
Furthermore "marion"s first post(!) containing "they're a moron" was enough to raise my suspicion, and the complaining about "I figured you out" will most likely have been a lighthouse signal to the one who made that remark.
Quite a while ago I asked the same to someone here who said he had experience/knowledge with email and newsgroup headers, and even he said he could effectivily only make guesses.
Also, being able to just extract the users identity from the newspost
headers would no go well with most of people - including arlen here - and
the newsgroup provider enabeling such a thing would be hemmoraging users
when that would come out in the open.
So no, there isn't anything in there from which you can extract a posters identity.
However, there is a (likely) possibility that one of those headers contains
a random(sh?) number which, if you have access to the newsgroup-servers look-up table you could find the number and next to it the identification
the person used to sign up with.
Than again, IIRC until last year I used an newgroup host which didn't ask
for a signup, so the trace would end there.
And do realize that arlen is one of the knights-of-claim-a-lot, meaning that he seldom, if ever, supports his claims with verifyable data.
There are a few possibilities for his claim :
1) He actually is able to do what he says. Though he's way to eager to show off what all he can do, so I think we can forget about that.
2) He thinks he noticed a constant or a pattern in those newsgroup-message headers contents, and concluded that that identifies him - blightely
ignoring that even if we would know where that that constant would be
located in the headers, we would not be able to ascertain who that that constant belongs to.
3) He's goading you/us with some "I know something you don't so I'm more important than you!". Which he definitily is the person for.
Last but not least, I've not heard of anyone being able to do what arlen there has been claiming for years now.
To recuperate :
is there a header that gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
Not to my knowledge.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
R.Wieser, 2025-01-14 16:11:
Arno,
Hardly ever.
See that page:
[snip list]
That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in >>> over 9.5 years.
Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
listed in Wikipedia. But even I know to men called "Andrea" and one man
called "Marion" personally.
And then there's a boy named Sue.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_Named_Sue>
That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to
one in over 9.5 years.
Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
listed in Wikipedia.
Marion for a boy peaked in the 1910s with a rate of 763/million.
Contrast with Andrew which peaked in the 1980s with 10x more
(7749/million).
is there a header that gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
Not to my knowledge.
Ok, so I was not missing anything.
He changes his story/excuses over the years,
but for quite some time
he has been claiming that it should be evident from the *body* (not the headers) that it's him and that anyone who can not do that within one or
two posts is stupid, etc..
Of course that argument is invalid and also invalidates most other claims/arguments he makes about his so-called "tutorials".
Identifying him via the headers of his posts is not practical.
I've not heard of anyone being able to do what arlen
there has been claiming for years now.
On 14 Jan 2025 14:26:51 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote :
Except that if you're using a fake name... He changes his story/excuses over the years,
Bullshit. I care about privacy. If you don't know that by now, that's YOUR problem, not mine. It's sad you can't comprehend something that simple.
but for quite some time
he has been claiming that it should be evident from the *body* (not the
headers) that it's him and that anyone who can not do that within one or
two posts is stupid, etc..
Jesus Christ, Frank.
Of all people on this ng, you ran your own NNTP server, and we have discussed, at length, in the past, that I can change (almost) any header to whatever I want it to be (as long as it's not injected by the server).
I haven't reacted to Carlos' claims that I said I could easily be located
in robotic scripts by some supposedly cryptic purposefully intruded header spit - but - the fact is I would never have said something that stupid.
Carlos, in his normal trolling fashion - simply made that up on his own.
The whole point, for God's sake, of munging the *headers* is so that
robotic scripts wouldn't be able to gather my many thousands (or whatever number there is) of my posts in decades of posting to Usenet & elsewhere.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:54:10 +0100, R.Wieser wrote :
Except the filters available in Usenet clients can't make that I've not heard of anyone being able to do what arlen
there has been claiming for years now.
Rudy,
You are a troll, which is fine, and Carlos is a troll, which is also fine, but the fact you two are discussing ad infinitum a falsity that Carlos
simply fabricated out of nothing - proves neither of you own a synapse.
If you can't tell, instantly, from the *body* of a message that it's from
me, then I claim that your IQ is so low, nothing you say will ever matter.
On 2025-01-22 20:14, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:54:10 +0100, R.Wieser wrote :Except the filters available in Usenet clients can't make that
 I've not heard of anyone being able to do what arlen
there has been claiming for years now.
Rudy,
You are a troll, which is fine, and Carlos is a troll, which is also
fine,
but the fact you two are discussing ad infinitum a falsity that Carlos
simply fabricated out of nothing - proves neither of you own a synapse.
If you can't tell, instantly, from the *body* of a message that it's from
me, then I claim that your IQ is so low, nothing you say will ever
matter.
distinction...
...so you're changing your nym to avoid those.
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones- and-tablets_en
1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches  & protection from dust
& water
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand  at least 800
charge and discharge cycles  while retaining at least 80% of their
initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations  for
producers to make critical spare parts available  within 5-10 working
days, and for 7 years after
 the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods  (at
least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on  the market of
the last unit of a product model)
5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers  to any
software or firmware needed for the replacement
And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact future innovations:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:13:17 -0800, Alan wrote:
And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact
future innovations:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died.
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation.
On 2025-01-25 14:39, Isaac Montara wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:13:17 -0800, Alan wrote:
And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact
future innovations:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.
Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died.
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation.
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.
Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died.
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation.
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.
Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died.
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation.
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple
can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.
Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died.
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation.
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple
can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation.
On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.
Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>>>
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation.
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple
can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation.
At the time Apple did it, there was no standard.
Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection standards
to suite.
On 2025-01-27 02:39, Alan wrote:You're being too literal about "standard".
On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >>>>Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>>>>
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >>>>
Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that
Apple
can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation.
At the time Apple did it, there was no standard.
Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection
standards to suite.
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None
did.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple
defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc.
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable?
On 2025-01-27 02:39, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote:
Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >>>>Why?
That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.
Why?
I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote.
Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>>>>
Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >>>>
Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple >>> can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation.
At the time Apple did it, there was no standard.
Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection standards
to suite.
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did.
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple
defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc.
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it.
None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple
defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc.
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable?
Wrong question?
What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning?
The answer is: "Many, many, many".
On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it.
None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple
defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc.
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable?
Wrong question?
What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning?
The answer is: "Many, many, many".
Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware.
Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds thatThe point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone connectivity...
my bank used as a gift.
On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. >>>>>> None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple
defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc.
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable?
Wrong question?
What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning?
The answer is: "Many, many, many".
Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware.
Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said.
The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone connectivity...
Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds
that my bank used as a gift.
...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the available options.
On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote:And so nothing that isn't "industry-wide" can ever be a standard, is
On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:Wrong question?
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? >>>>Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed
it. None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >>>>>
What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning?
The answer is: "Many, many, many".
Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware.
Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said.
The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone
Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds
that my bank used as a gift.
connectivity...
...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the
available options.
Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard.
On 2025-01-28 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote:And so nothing that isn't "industry-wide" can ever be a standard, is
On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:Wrong question?
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? >>>>>Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed >>>>>>>> it. None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >>>>>>
What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning?
The answer is: "Many, many, many".
Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware.
Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said.
The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone
Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds
that my bank used as a gift.
connectivity...
...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the
available options.
Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard.
that right?
On 2025-01-28 21:39, Alan wrote:
On 2025-01-28 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote:And so nothing that isn't "industry-wide" can ever be a standard, is
On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote:Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said.
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed >>>>>>>>> it. None did.
It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, >>>>>>>> etc.
What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning
cable?
Wrong question?
What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? >>>>>>
The answer is: "Many, many, many".
Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. >>>>
The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for
Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds
that my bank used as a gift.
smartphone connectivity...
...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the
available options.
Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard.
that right?
Doubtful. It is a limited use standard, an attempt at a standard, dunno.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:47:06 |
| Calls: | 9,670 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,716 |
| Messages: | 6,169,727 |
