Carlos,

> Caring? When he doesn't like what we say, he turns to insulting us.

Yep. In all those years I've known him he hasn't changed a bit in that
regard. That, and his expectation that we do all his work for him.

> I don't accept said tutorials unless they are posted on a fixed web site,
> not a forum with a collection of posts. Properly indexed.

Although its ofcourse nice to have permalinks, even the ones that are ment
as such can break given enough time (nothing is forever). As such I, when
its looks worthwhile or even just interresting, have the habit of copying
the offered information to my local machine.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-01 21:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2025-01-01 19:59, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> I had a Fitbit 2, and now a Fitbit Luxe. Doesn't upload anything to any
> >>>> account. I never bought any premium services. I don't need all those
> >>>> extras for how I use it. The only "extra" I enabled was to pair the
> >>>> Fitbit to my smart phone via Bluetooth to transfer data from device to
> >>>> Android app. Don't need an online account for that.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know what a "Fitbit 2" is, probably a "Fitbit <something> 2"
> >>> where "<something>" is the relevant part.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I always needed a Fitbit account for our Fitbits (Alta HR,
> >>> Charge 4, Charge 5 and Charge 6). Without an account, the Fitbit won't
> >>> sync, also not to the Fitbit app on the phone. And to sync, it needs an
> >>> Internet connection. Stupid design, but that's the way it is.
> >>>
> >>> So, on the phone, do you use the Fitbit app or another app, if so
> >>> which one?
> >>
> >> Google Fit.
> >
> > Are you sure? The Google Fit entry on the Google Play site [1] doesn't
> > even mention Fitbit in its list of devices and its website [2] doesn't
> > list any devices.
> >
> > I always thought that *other* *apps* (not devices), could talk to
> > Google Fit and that Google Fit then showed a consolidation of all the
> > data.
>
> I don't know for sure where it gets its data from, but it is there.
> Maybe Google Fit talks with Fitbit app.
>
> I had that app installed from before, then one day I noticed that it had
> data that seemed to come from the watch. Yes, looking there is displays
> my siesta data as coming from Fitbit. It also shows the map of my walk
> this afternoon, with a label that says "Fitbit".
>
> In the details, it shows the elevation graph of the walk, something that
> is missing in the Fitbit app.
>
> I remember vaguely saying yes to share data, but I don't remember which
> of the two apps. Maybe both.

Thanks.

> > IIRC, I used Google Fit in the past, but I can't remember with which
> > app/service/device.

I looked for my notes ("grep 'Google Fit' *" :-)) and it turns out I
tried Google Fit with Fitbit and Sleep as Android.

With Fitbit, Google Fit only showed distance, calories and steps.

With Sleep as Android, Google Fit only showed time-slept.

So for both Fitbit and Sleep as Android, the 'integration' with Google
Fit wasn't useful and I uninstalled Googlle Fit.

> >>> I think my <insert_loved_one> has a Fitbit Luxe (on an iPhone). I've
> >>> to ask her what she needs to sync. I know they have a Fitbit Family
> >>> account together with her <insert_smaller_loved_one>.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >
> > [1]
> > <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.fitness>
> >
> > [2] <https://www.google.com/fit/>

Jeff Layman wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:47:14 +0000 :

> Android is said to have 12 million lines of code. Is it really
> known to anyone outside Google what all of them do?

Hi Jeff,

Happy New Year!

We've worked together on plenty of things in the past, so it's good to see
you back, where you must know that Rudy has an IQ no higher than about 50.

Anyway, regarding Graphene OS, it's my understanding, as it is yours, that
it's a de-googled Android, which, much like ungoogled chromium, starts with
the base code and, one by one, removes the data collection, blocks
tracking, and focuses on user control - all of which are good things.

As for me, I can't install GrapheneOS because my bootloader is not known to
be rootable - so the simplest alternative to Graphene OS is what I do now.

1. I never set up Android to have a Google account integral in Settings.
2. I delete every Google app and package that doesn't break the system.
3. I replace each Google functionality I like, with its private equivalent.

This works for me, but I'm more intelligent than most people on this ng
are, so it won't work for the vast majority of posters to this newsgroup.

But for those who own a modicum of knowledge, it's EASY to gain a huge leap
in privacy simply by performing a few extremely logical very simple acts.

A. Never allow the Google Account to become part of the Android settings.
B. Log into Google GMail using any privacy-aware MUA (plenty exist).
C. Log into the Google Play Store repo using a privacy-aware app finder.
D. Log into the Google YouTube database using a privacy-aware replacement.
E. Replace the Chrome browser with a privacy-aware replacement.
etc.

In my humblest of opinions, this is so logical and simple that anyone who
"complains" that they can't have privacy is simply stating that their IQ is
too low for them to understand the most basic simple components of privacy.

Specifically, people like Rudy complain that they can't have privacy but
what they're really telling us is their IQ is too low for them to
understand it.

So these low-IQ ignorant defeatists like Rudy claim, sans any evidence
whatsoever, that GrapheneOS is riddled with privacy holes, when it's not.

VanguardLH does the same thing. Their IQ is too low for them to understand.
Yours is not, thank God.

Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:55:39 +0100 :

> In the details, it shows the elevation graph of the walk, something that
> is missing in the Fitbit app.

Luckily, we've solved the problem of replacing Google FitBit with
equivalent privacy-aware functionality in this new companion thread.

*For privacy, what is a suitable alternative to the Google FitBit app on Android?*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=56645&group=comp.mobile.android#56645>

All it takes is a modicum of intelligence to replace FitBit features with
privacy-aware equivalent functionality (which doesn't involve the forfeit
of privacy by setting up a Google Account integral to the Android system).

For example,
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker>

VanguardLH wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 02:02:53 -0600 :

> Of course, Andrew isn't going to believe anything regarding privacy when
> Google is involved.

Hi VanguardLH,

You're wrong. Again.

Rest assured I've read everything you've posted to this newsgroup for
years, where I'm well aware your IQ is below normal, so be aware please
that you can't possibly comprehend *any* approach to privacy on Android.

Most people are too stupid to understand the implications of privacy.
That's why people like Rudy & Chris & Carlos simply give up on privacy.

It's too complicated for them.
And for you.

All of you hate that you're stupid; so you blame me for your ignorance.
So be it.

Suffice to say you always guess - and you always guess wrong, VanguardLH.
I've told you that before - but your mind can't handle basic facts.

Rest assured I have *plenty* of Google Accounts, VanguardLH. Tons of them.

So you *can* have privacy even when a Google Account is involved.
I realize your IQ is so low you can't comprehend that statement.

But it's true.

The *biggest* step toward privacy when Google is involved is to never use
the three Google apps which automatically infest Android with an account.

Again, I realize that simple statement, obvious as it is, is still too
advanced for your low-IQ brain to fathom - but rest assured, it's true.

As long as you avoid those (easily avoided) 3 Google apps, you're off to a
good start on obtaining privacy on Android without Google tracking you.

To the original topic, which takes at least an average IQ to comprehend, so
far nobody yet has found even a single Google app that can't be replaced by
a privacy-aware app - and which doesn't infest Android with an account.

Can you?

R.Wieser wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:26:02 +0100 :

> Although its ofcourse nice to have permalinks, even the ones that are ment
> as such can break given enough time (nothing is forever). As such I, when
> its looks worthwhile or even just interresting, have the habit of copying
> the offered information to my local machine.

Hi Rudy & Carlos,

Rest assured I'm well aware your entire lives you've been told you were
stupid, which has never happened to me - so we're entirely different types.

I'm intelligent. You're not.
That's a BIG difference.

I've added more value to the Android newsgroup tribal knowledge in just one
of (oh, I can't count how many - hundreds for sure - thousands over my
life) tutorials that I've posted to Usenet all found by search engines.

In fact, you, Rudy & Carlos have *never* written even one tutorial.
Not a single one.

Which is to say I've added more value to people's knowledge in a single day
than you both combined have added in your entire lives. Think about that.

I'm caring.
I'm helpful.
I'm extremely intelligent.
And rather detailed.

My tutorials cover every single step.
Such that I can do what only one out of a million people can do.

You hate that you can't do *any* of that.
So you judge knowledge by the number of words.

For you, the fewer the better.
Fancy that.

Your IQ is so low that in a single day I've kind-heartedly purposefully
helpfully contributed more to our overall knowledge than the both of you
could possibly contribute in your entire sordid sorry lives.

That's just a fact.
You hate that fact.

You spend all your time denying facts.
I spend my time disseminating them.

So you hate me.
But your hatred of me stems solely from your own hatred of your low IQ.

So be it.
You can deny every fact you hate (which is pretty much every fact).

But the fact is your IQ pales in comparison to that of mine.
So you disparage my hundreds (if not thousands) of helpful tutorials.

So be it.
I'm not here to massage your ego.

I'm here to teach people who have enough intelligence to learn.
(i.e., not you)

VanguardLH wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 02:08:37 -0600 :

> Reset the phone, and next time when an app wants a login then refuse to
> prevent having the account stored on the phone. If you're just
> protesting Google, don't login to any newly loaded app that wants you to
> specify a Google account, so it doesn't get stored on your phone. After
> a reset, there are no accounts stored on the phone. It is after *you*
> specify a login that either the app will store it locally to itself, or
> load it into Accounts in the Android OS.

There are only 3 known Google apps which infest Android with a login.
And each of those 3 Google apps has a privacy-aware replacement.

Bear in mind that *plenty* of Google apps have a login that does *not*
infest the Android device with an integral account, VanguardLH.

I realize your IQ is so low you can't comprehend that basic fact.
But Theo understood.

Nobody else understood.
Just Theo.

And, rest assured, for those 3 apps which do infect Android with a
system-wide Google Account, there are free privacy-aware equivalents.

That's what we've learned this week.
Not you. You can't learn anything.

But we learned that.

There is no Google functionality on Android that you can't get without a
Google Account integrally set up inside the Android operating system.

If there were, someone would have mentioned it by now.

On 2025-01-02 19:51, Andrew wrote:
> R.Wieser wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:26:02 +0100 :
>
>> Although its ofcourse nice to have permalinks, even the ones that are
>> ment as such can break given enough time (nothing is forever).   As
>> such I, when its looks worthwhile or even just interresting, have the
>> habit of copying the offered information to my local machine.
>
> Hi Rudy & Carlos,
>
> Rest assured I'm well aware your entire lives you've been told you were
> stupid, which has never happened to me - so we're entirely different types.

Bingo! There you are with your insults. Not reading the rest, whatever
it says.

Oh, I see you added the privacy group, to spread the insults more.

I forgot to mention that sometimes you participate in the same thread
with more than one alias, which is a very trollish behaviour.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-01-02 19:42, Andrew wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 02:02:53 -0600 :
>
>> Of course, Andrew isn't going to believe anything regarding privacy when
>> Google is involved.
>
> Hi VanguardLH,
>
> You're wrong. Again.
>
> Rest assured I've read everything you've posted to this newsgroup for
> years, where I'm well aware your IQ is below normal,

Insulting again. Not reading the rest of the post.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-01-02 19:31, Andrew wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:55:39 +0100 :
>
>> In the details, it shows the elevation graph of the walk, something
>> that is missing in the Fitbit app.
>
> Luckily, we've solved the problem of replacing Google FitBit with
> equivalent privacy-aware functionality in this new companion thread.
>
> *For privacy, what is a suitable alternative to the Google FitBit app on
> Android?*
> <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?
> id=56645&group=comp.mobile.android#56645>
>
> All it takes is a modicum of intelligence to replace FitBit features with
> privacy-aware equivalent functionality (which doesn't involve the forfeit
> of privacy by setting up a Google Account integral to the Android system).
>
> For example,
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?
> id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker>

Have you verified that it talks with the fitbit smart watches and gets
ALL the data? AFAIK, that Pedometer only does that, pedometry.

Removing the privacy group, which you added silently.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 02/01/2025 10:46, R.Wieser wrote:
> Jeff,
>
>> However, Android is said to have 12 million lines of code. Is it really
>> known to anyone outside Google what all of them do?
>
> Which is exactly why a sane person would not want to go and try to
> de-google-ify it, and starting with a clean version would be a better idea.
> Yes, I applied logic there.
>
> Also, the parent spoke of "android" after which I tried to make him aware
> that Googles android is something different than android. Yet, you speak
> of "android" as if googles version of it is the base one. Do you have any
> support for that ?

Well, Google didn't invent Android, but if you look at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#History>
you'll see that Android Inc started in 2000 and was going in the wrong
direction for 4 years (being developed as an OS for digital cameras).
They changed for a year to try to develop it as a mobile OS, but had
almost gone bust at one time. Google bought them out in 2005. The rest
is history.
(There is a slightly different account for the earliest years at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history#Overview>, but it
is not significantly different).

Effectively, unless you're going to suggest that the 20-years old
pre-Google Android is what Graphene and others developed their OS from,
it can /only/ have come from stripping down Google's Android.

> And by the way, I do not even think that the people inside Google know what
> all of it does. :-)

I don't disagree, but that's what happens over a long development time.
However, nobody else is better placed than those inside Google to know
what Android does. And that's what concerns me - who knows what
"innocent" code they've included that nobody else knows about? Have
Graphene and others /really/ looked through all the code and know what
it does?

On an unrelated point, I was surprised to see that GrapheneOS uses
automatic updates only. There's no choice - their OS is updated whether
you want it or not. That's not what I would have expected.

--
Jeff

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I don't disagree, but that's what happens over a long development time.
> However, nobody else is better placed than those inside Google to know
> what Android does. And that's what concerns me - who knows what
> "innocent" code they've included that nobody else knows about? Have
> Graphene and others /really/ looked through all the code and know what
> it does?

As a software QA tester, I would visit the programmer responsible for
the part of the software they were working on to ask about testing
procedure, and about what-if scenarios. Too often they didn't know, it
was someone else's coding job, but that guy only knew that code, and not
the entire product, and often the response to many what-if scenarios is
they wouldn't happen (but I can reproduce them then so can customers).

Too often the programmers would add "innocent" code they thought was
helpful, but didn't like when I required a new check-in code branch
which exposed their little changes, and their little fixups as a result.
When they made even a little change, we in QA had to come up with
testing for it, but the devs didn't document the changes in the
Functional or Engineering Spec docs, and we'd find it by accident. We
had weekly review meetings during development, and sometimes I'd ask a
question that had all the devs turning their heads, and no one offering
a response. Too many cooks making a meal.

I haven't heard that the Android OS or Graphene OS have had independent
audits despite they may be free open source. FOSS doesn't guarantee
anyone outside the dev team has inspected the code.

Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:25:24 +0100 :

> Not reading the rest of the post.

The fact remains VanguardLH does NOT know the difference between a Google
login on the Internet versus a Google account integral with the phone.

Who on earth, is *that* stupid, Carlos?
Given that obvious fact, I ascribed an IQ of about 50 to VanguardLH.

What IQ do you calculate for people on this ng *that* stupid, Carlos?
And do YOU know the difference yourself, Carlos?

I suspect not.

Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:17:46 +0100 :

> There you are with your insults.

How many detailed tutorials have you posted to this newsgroup Carlos?

Jeff,

> Well, Google didn't invent Android, but if you look at
[Link #1]
[Link #2]

Thanks for that.

> Effectively, unless you're going to suggest that the 20-years old
> pre-Google Android is what Graphene and others developed their OS
> from, it can /only/ have come from stripping down Google's Android.
....
> And that's what concerns me - who knows what "innocent" code they've
> included that nobody else knows about?

Thats where my "I applied logic there" came from.

But, if all is as you described it looks like the creators of GrapheneOS had
little choice than to strip Googles android. I always thought that a
basic Android was out there too.

I can only hope that Google didn't put its stuff into Androids Linux kernel
....

> On an unrelated point, I was surprised to see that GrapheneOS uses
> automatic updates only. There's no choice - their OS is updated whether
> you want it or not. That's not what I would have expected.

I was thinking of turning off automatic updating*, and would also be
negativily surprised not being able to find it.

* didn't yet look for it, as I consider that phone to be a tool, not a
computer on which I do, to me, important stuff (read: hobby programming).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 03/01/2025 00:40, VanguardLH wrote:
> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't disagree, but that's what happens over a long development time.
>> However, nobody else is better placed than those inside Google to know
>> what Android does. And that's what concerns me - who knows what
>> "innocent" code they've included that nobody else knows about? Have
>> Graphene and others /really/ looked through all the code and know what
>> it does?
>
> As a software QA tester, I would visit the programmer responsible for
> the part of the software they were working on to ask about testing
> procedure, and about what-if scenarios. Too often they didn't know, it
> was someone else's coding job, but that guy only knew that code, and not
> the entire product, and often the response to many what-if scenarios is
> they wouldn't happen (but I can reproduce them then so can customers).
>
> Too often the programmers would add "innocent" code they thought was
> helpful, but didn't like when I required a new check-in code branch
> which exposed their little changes, and their little fixups as a result.
> When they made even a little change, we in QA had to come up with
> testing for it, but the devs didn't document the changes in the
> Functional or Engineering Spec docs, and we'd find it by accident. We
> had weekly review meetings during development, and sometimes I'd ask a
> question that had all the devs turning their heads, and no one offering
> a response. Too many cooks making a meal.

Thanks for that; it rather confirms my suspicions. I guess there could
be code in their own AndroidOS that even "Google" doesn't know about.

> I haven't heard that the Android OS or Graphene OS have had independent
> audits despite they may be free open source. FOSS doesn't guarantee
> anyone outside the dev team has inspected the code.

You might find these of interest:
<https://grapheneos.org/faq#audit>
<https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/i-dont-trust-pixel-graphene-where-are-the-authoritative-claims-of-its-credibility/17503>
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3448609>

--
Jeff

On 03/01/2025 06:32, R.Wieser wrote:

> I can only hope that Google didn't put its stuff into Androids Linux kernel

All phone manufacturers, including Google (for its Pixel), would
probably have to modify the kernel in order for it to work with whatever
hardware they've included in the phone. As the kernel would have to
interact with the OS, it's probable that Google (and Chinese suppliers
who were not allowed to use Google's AndroidOS, and so had to write
their own), had to rewrite parts of the kernel so it could do that.

The very first sentence of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)> starts
"Android is a mobile operating system based on a *modified* version of
the Linux kernel..." (my emphasis!).

>> On an unrelated point, I was surprised to see that GrapheneOS uses
>> automatic updates only. There's no choice - their OS is updated whether
>> you want it or not. That's not what I would have expected.
>
> I was thinking of turning off automatic updating*, and would also be
> negativily surprised not being able to find it.

<https://grapheneos.org/faq#updates>

> * didn't yet look for it, as I consider that phone to be a tool, not a
> computer on which I do, to me, important stuff (read: hobby programming).

Most of the general public use a cellphone as their only "computer".
Even if they once owned a desktop or laptop, changes to the telephone
system mean that they no longer bother with a router and broadband
connection.

--
Jeff

On 2025-01-03 05:51, Andrew wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:17:46 +0100 :
>
>> There you are with your insults.
>
> How many detailed tutorials have you posted to this newsgroup Carlos?

Why would I?

You haven't actually published any one, either.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-01-03 05:42, Andrew wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:25:24 +0100 :
>
>> Not reading the rest of the post.
>
> The fact remains VanguardLH does NOT know the difference between a Google
> login on the Internet versus a Google account integral with the phone.
>
> Who on earth, is *that* stupid, Carlos?

Insulting again.

No read.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-03 05:42, Andrew wrote:
> > Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:25:24 +0100 :
> >
> >> Not reading the rest of the post.
> >
> > The fact remains VanguardLH does NOT know the difference between a Google
> > login on the Internet versus a Google account integral with the phone.
> >
> > Who on earth, is *that* stupid, Carlos?
>
> Insulting again.

Not only insulting, but insulting, as usual, based on his
*mis*representation of someone's *actual* position/comments/non-
comments/etc..

Misrepresenation due to malice or stupidity? What about *both*?

> No read.

I *cannot* read what my news server rejects! :-)

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> I haven't heard that the Android OS or Graphene OS have had
>> independent audits despite they may be free open source. FOSS
>> doesn't guarantee anyone outside the dev team has inspected the
>> code.
>
> You might find these of interest:
> <https://grapheneos.org/faq#audit>
> <https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/i-dont-trust-pixel-graphene-where-are-the-authoritative-claims-of-its-credibility/17503>
> <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3448609>

Rather than claim the code has been audited, prove the claim by
referencing the audits. Anyone can say their code is audited. Again,
being open source doesn't mean *independent* audit. Nice to know,
though, their code is well documented.

AOSP projects are peered reviewed. Well, we had weekly code reviews,
but guess who was reviewing the code. They really didn't want QA
attending those meetings, and even we weren't outside auditors.
Independent audit means non-peer review.

A published paper describing how security (and only that facet) should
work in an OS is not an independent audit of the code. Just a
description of how it should work. Still, it's interesting reading.

While I've found no independent audits of GrapheneOS, I suspect any such
code reviews would be on Android (haven't found audits for that, either)
while any variations thereof would get passed over. Android has lots of
users. GrapheneOS not so much. I've seen guesses there are 175K
GrapheneOS users. Android is estimated at 3 billion.

Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Most of the general public use a cellphone as their only "computer".
> Even if they once owned a desktop or laptop, changes to the telephone
> system mean that they no longer bother with a router and broadband
> connection.

Yep, us desktop PC users are feeling like an endangered species: 40%
global web traffic compared to 58% for mobile devices (78% of which is
by Android users). Considering the toy computer it is, small display,
and lack of good input devices (unless you Bluetooth a keyboard and
mouse), I dislike web surfing on a phone. Still, it beats lugging a
laptop or notebook on a vacation. A big smartphone in a belt holster
beats toting around a bag with a laptop.

There must be some age break for those that do and don't suffer
nomophobia. Some folks have withdrawl symptoms if they don't have their
phone on them all the time.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Most of the general public use a cellphone as their only "computer".
> > Even if they once owned a desktop or laptop, changes to the telephone
> > system mean that they no longer bother with a router and broadband
> > connection.
>
> Yep, us desktop PC users are feeling like an endangered species: 40%
> global web traffic compared to 58% for mobile devices (78% of which is
> by Android users). Considering the toy computer it is, small display,
> and lack of good input devices (unless you Bluetooth a keyboard and
> mouse), I dislike web surfing on a phone. Still, it beats lugging a
> laptop or notebook on a vacation. A big smartphone in a belt holster
> beats toting around a bag with a laptop.

The "mobile devices" category probably includes tablets. IME, most
households which have mobile phones, also have tablets or/and laptops.

> There must be some age break for those that do and don't suffer
> nomophobia. Some folks have withdrawl symptoms if they don't have their
> phone on them all the time.

"Some"!? :-)

Carlos,

>> The fact remains VanguardLH does NOT know the difference between a Google
>> login on the Internet versus a Google account integral with the phone.
>>
>> Who on earth, is *that* stupid, Carlos?
>
> Insulting again.

Besides goading you with the *suggestion* /he/ does know - but somehow
forgot to tell.

Funny that: No tutorials of his we can look at, nothing to(dis)agree with
here. Its almost as if he's trying to hide something ...

Obvious games are obvious.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Andrew, 2025-01-02 02:28:

> Arno Welzel wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 23:19:50 +0100 :
>
>>> What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?
>>
>> Everything what does not need a Google account. That was easy.
>
> You have no idea how Android works if you say something that absurd.

Why? When you don't have a Google account you can still use Android
itself. Is that not correct?

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de