https://www.sammobile.com/news/apples-latest-iphone-could-copy-from-samsung-for-a-change/

See, even your overlords at Apple are admitting that Samsung beat them
to the punch.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-01 12:47, Joel wrote:
> https://www.sammobile.com/news/apples-latest-iphone-could-copy-from-samsung-for-a-change/
>
>
> See, even your overlords at Apple are admitting that Samsung beat them
> to the punch.
>

Seriously: this is all you've got?

There is a RUMOUR that Apple is doing something.

And even then, all your source says is that Apple might be copying a
NAMING CONVENTION.

Even though using a single "E" isn't really the same as using "FE", and...

....Apple has had an iPhone with "SE" for the last nearly 9 years...

....when Samsung's "FE" lineup has only been around for a little more
than 4 years.

So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> https://www.sammobile.com/news/apples-latest-iphone-could-copy-from-samsung-for-a-change/
>>
>>
>> See, even your overlords at Apple are admitting that Samsung beat them
>> to the punch.
>
>Seriously: this is all you've got?
>
>There is a RUMOUR that Apple is doing something.
>
>And even then, all your source says is that Apple might be copying a
>NAMING CONVENTION.
>
>Even though using a single "E" isn't really the same as using "FE", and...
>
>...Apple has had an iPhone with "SE" for the last nearly 9 years...
>
>...when Samsung's "FE" lineup has only been around for a little more
>than 4 years.
>
>So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?

I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-01 13:58, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> https://www.sammobile.com/news/apples-latest-iphone-could-copy-from-samsung-for-a-change/
>>>
>>>
>>> See, even your overlords at Apple are admitting that Samsung beat them
>>> to the punch.
>>
>> Seriously: this is all you've got?
>>
>> There is a RUMOUR that Apple is doing something.
>>
>> And even then, all your source says is that Apple might be copying a
>> NAMING CONVENTION.
>>
>> Even though using a single "E" isn't really the same as using "FE", and...
>>
>> ...Apple has had an iPhone with "SE" for the last nearly 9 years...
>>
>> ...when Samsung's "FE" lineup has only been around for a little more
>> than 4 years.
>>
>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>
>
> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>

Fixed the subject for you.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> https://www.sammobile.com/news/apples-latest-iphone-could-copy-from-samsung-for-a-change/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See, even your overlords at Apple are admitting that Samsung beat them
>>>> to the punch.
>>>
>>> Seriously: this is all you've got?
>>>
>>> There is a RUMOUR that Apple is doing something.
>>>
>>> And even then, all your source says is that Apple might be copying a
>>> NAMING CONVENTION.
>>>
>>> Even though using a single "E" isn't really the same as using "FE", and...
>>>
>>> ...Apple has had an iPhone with "SE" for the last nearly 9 years...
>>>
>>> ...when Samsung's "FE" lineup has only been around for a little more
>>> than 4 years.
>>>
>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>
>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>
>Fixed the subject for you.

And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
weird.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-01 14:39, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> https://www.sammobile.com/news/apples-latest-iphone-could-copy-from-samsung-for-a-change/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See, even your overlords at Apple are admitting that Samsung beat them
>>>>> to the punch.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously: this is all you've got?
>>>>
>>>> There is a RUMOUR that Apple is doing something.
>>>>
>>>> And even then, all your source says is that Apple might be copying a
>>>> NAMING CONVENTION.
>>>>
>>>> Even though using a single "E" isn't really the same as using "FE", and...
>>>>
>>>> ...Apple has had an iPhone with "SE" for the last nearly 9 years...
>>>>
>>>> ...when Samsung's "FE" lineup has only been around for a little more
>>>> than 4 years.
>>>>
>>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>>
>>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>>
>> Fixed the subject for you.
>
>
> And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
> Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
> that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
> why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
> agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
> weird.
>

"It would MAKE Apple showing progress"?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your gibberish.

Dude, try again, but this time in English.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>>>
>>>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>>>
>>> Fixed the subject for you.
>>
>> And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
>> Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
>> that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
>> why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
>> agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
>> weird.
>
>"It would MAKE Apple showing progress"?

"It would mean that Apple was showing progress" is what I should have
edited it to say.

>I'm not going to bother with the rest of your gibberish.
>
>Dude, try again, but this time in English.

Oh gibberish, huh, unlike Apple's UI, heh. That's a great descriptor
for it, malformed functions, inferior, and yet the Apple name sells
these devices.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-01 15:10, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>>>>
>>>>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed the subject for you.
>>>
>>> And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
>>> Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
>>> that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
>>> why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
>>> agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
>>> weird.
>>
>> "It would MAKE Apple showing progress"?
>
>
> "It would mean that Apple was showing progress" is what I should have
> edited it to say.

In what way would it mean that Apple was showing progress?

Literally, all there is in the article is a rumour that Apple will be
changing the NAME they use for a product.

>
>
>> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your gibberish.
>>
>> Dude, try again, but this time in English.
>
>
> Oh gibberish, huh, unlike Apple's UI, heh. That's a great descriptor
> for it, malformed functions, inferior, and yet the Apple name sells
> these devices.
What function(s) in Apple's is/(are) "malformed"?

When you've put yourself in a huge hole...

....stop digging.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed the subject for you.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
>>>> Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
>>>> that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
>>>> why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
>>>> agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
>>>> weird.
>>>
>>> "It would MAKE Apple showing progress"?
>>
>> "It would mean that Apple was showing progress" is what I should have
>> edited it to say.
>
>In what way would it mean that Apple was showing progress?
>
>Literally, all there is in the article is a rumour that Apple will be
>changing the NAME they use for a product.

I meant that if I had correctly read the article, the first time, I
thought that this phone was going to add buttons to the UI, like
Samsung has - how I came to that conclusion is a mystery, but I was
high on drugs. However, as I suggested, if that were somehow true it
would mean Apple had come around, and admitted their design sucks
balls.

>>> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your gibberish.
>>>
>>> Dude, try again, but this time in English.
>>
>> Oh gibberish, huh, unlike Apple's UI, heh. That's a great descriptor
>> for it, malformed functions, inferior, and yet the Apple name sells
>> these devices.
>What function(s) in Apple's is/(are) "malformed"?
>
>When you've put yourself in a huge hole...
>
>...stop digging.

The lack of buttons.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-01 15:34, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixed the subject for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
>>>>> Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
>>>>> that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
>>>>> why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
>>>>> agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
>>>>> weird.
>>>>
>>>> "It would MAKE Apple showing progress"?
>>>
>>> "It would mean that Apple was showing progress" is what I should have
>>> edited it to say.
>>
>> In what way would it mean that Apple was showing progress?
>>
>> Literally, all there is in the article is a rumour that Apple will be
>> changing the NAME they use for a product.
>
>
> I meant that if I had correctly read the article, the first time, I
> thought that this phone was going to add buttons to the UI, like
> Samsung has - how I came to that conclusion is a mystery, but I was
> high on drugs. However, as I suggested, if that were somehow true it
> would mean Apple had come around, and admitted their design sucks
> balls.

1. No, that is NOT what you said at any time. Let me elucidate (and I'll
wait a few minutes while you look that up):

You're now claiming that when you wrote, "And yet, if I had first
examined the article correctly, it would mean that Apple was showing
progress".

What you (apparently) meant to have said was:

"And yet, if the article had said what I thought it did, it would mean
that Apple was showing progress".

So...

2. If changing the UI is proof that the previous UI "sucks balls", then
you should examine the fact that Android has switched its default UI for
app switching to APPLE's UI for doing so: with gestures.

>
>
>>>> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> Dude, try again, but this time in English.
>>>
>>> Oh gibberish, huh, unlike Apple's UI, heh. That's a great descriptor
>>> for it, malformed functions, inferior, and yet the Apple name sells
>>> these devices.
>> What function(s) in Apple's is/(are) "malformed"?
>>
>> When you've put yourself in a huge hole...
>>
>> ...stop digging.
>
>
> The lack of buttons.
Are you still high?

Because words have MEANINGS, and "malformed" doesn't match that.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> So to exactly what "punch" did Samsung beat Apple?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I screwed up, actually, this phone isn't imitating Samsung.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixed the subject for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet, if I had first examined the article correctly, it would make
>>>>>> Apple showing *progress*, which is kind of funny since your defense is
>>>>>> that *I* was wrong, just some guy online who can wrap my mind around
>>>>>> why Apple does it the way it does. I mean, not in the sense of
>>>>>> agreement, but in the sense of seeing that they are OK with being
>>>>>> weird.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It would MAKE Apple showing progress"?
>>>>
>>>> "It would mean that Apple was showing progress" is what I should have
>>>> edited it to say.
>>>
>>> In what way would it mean that Apple was showing progress?
>>>
>>> Literally, all there is in the article is a rumour that Apple will be
>>> changing the NAME they use for a product.
>>
>> I meant that if I had correctly read the article, the first time, I
>> thought that this phone was going to add buttons to the UI, like
>> Samsung has - how I came to that conclusion is a mystery, but I was
>> high on drugs. However, as I suggested, if that were somehow true it
>> would mean Apple had come around, and admitted their design sucks
>> balls.
>
>1. No, that is NOT what you said at any time. Let me elucidate (and I'll
>wait a few minutes while you look that up):
>
>You're now claiming that when you wrote, "And yet, if I had first
>examined the article correctly, it would mean that Apple was showing
>progress".
>
>What you (apparently) meant to have said was:
>
>"And yet, if the article had said what I thought it did, it would mean
>that Apple was showing progress".
>
>So...
>
>2. If changing the UI is proof that the previous UI "sucks balls", then
>you should examine the fact that Android has switched its default UI for
>app switching to APPLE's UI for doing so: with gestures.

You specify it's a "default", obviously they are giving people the
choice. I know what choice I would make.

>>>>> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your gibberish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude, try again, but this time in English.
>>>>
>>>> Oh gibberish, huh, unlike Apple's UI, heh. That's a great descriptor
>>>> for it, malformed functions, inferior, and yet the Apple name sells
>>>> these devices.
>>> What function(s) in Apple's is/(are) "malformed"?
>>>
>>> When you've put yourself in a huge hole...
>>>
>>> ...stop digging.
>>
>> The lack of buttons.
>Are you still high?
>
>Because words have MEANINGS, and "malformed" doesn't match that.

It's malformed *code* underlying the visible features on the screen -
crafting a UI sans real controls, wasting people's time.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>> Android has switched its default UI for
>>> app switching to APPLE's UI for doing so: with gestures.
>>
>> You specify it's a "default", obviously they are giving people the
>> choice. I know what choice I would make.
>
>Way to miss the point!

Incorrect, remember Windows 8? I upgraded to it, with the
introductory $40 price for Pro, and the first thing I did was install
Classic Shell, to give it a start menu. Likewise, if I purchased a
Galaxy S24, and it indeed changes the UI as you describe, I'd revert
it to the way my current S21 is.

>> [The iPhone has] a UI sans real controls, wasting people's time.
>It clearly has real controls, doofus.
>
>You may not like them, but it clearly has controls.
>
>So that's another failure for you.

Bzzt.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 1/1/2025 7:33 PM, Alan wrote:

>> It's malformed *code* underlying the visible features on the screen -
>> crafting a UI sans real controls, wasting people's time.
> It clearly has real controls, doofus.
>
> You may not like them, but it clearly has controls.
>
> So that's another failure for you.

Sorry to interrupt your fun but...

Do yourself a favor, Alan. Walk (or run) away from this. Joel is a
nutbag who is constantly on drugs (as he said earlier), thinks he has a
"girlfriend" even though the "girlfriend" is a man who wears a dress and
makeup AND Joel thinks he (Joel) is Jesus.

As I said, walk away. Don't expect to have a rational conversation with
a drugged, delusional, insane person.

Nick Charles wrote:
>On 1/1/2025 7:33 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>>> It's malformed *code* underlying the visible features on the screen -
>>> crafting a UI sans real controls, wasting people's time.
>> It clearly has real controls, doofus.
>>
>> You may not like them, but it clearly has controls.
>>
>> So that's another failure for you.
>
>Sorry to interrupt your fun but...
>
>Do yourself a favor, Alan. Walk (or run) away from this. Joel is a
>nutbag who is constantly on drugs (as he said earlier), thinks he has a
>"girlfriend" even though the "girlfriend" is a man who wears a dress and
>makeup AND Joel thinks he (Joel) is Jesus.
>
>As I said, walk away. Don't expect to have a rational conversation with
>a drugged, delusional, insane person.

Lol, you ironically expose latent schizophrenia by saying that.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.