-hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:45 -0400 :

>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships with the
>> iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past, oh, five years?
>
> Already done: the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.

I new you would never be able to back up your claim with even one fact.
Your entire strongly held belief system is based on exactly zero facts.

Given the reason Apple can't innovate due to Apple's historically paltry
spend on R&D (and yet, Apple's spend on Marketing is enormous), it's not
surprising that Apple hasn't been able to design a folding iPhone.

As a result of the low R&D spend, Apple is years behind all others in tech.

HINT: Integrated 5G modem design, GPUs, CPUs (sans unpatchable flaws), etc.

On 2024-07-21, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:45 -0400 :
>
>>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships
>>> with the iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past,
>>> oh, five years?
>>
>> Already done: the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.
>
> I new you would never be able to back up your claim with even one
> fact.

Projection.

Also, it's "knew".

You'd think someone as bright as you claim to be would know that.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote on 21 Jul 2024 17:26:24 GMT :

> You'd think someone as bright as you claim to be would know that.

Thanks for pointing out the only error in my post, which was a typo.

What remains is that none of you strange zealots can back up your strongly
held religious beliefs about Apple innovation with nary a single fact.

Which means your entire strongly held belief system is based on zero facts.

On 2024-07-21 14:03:45 +0000, -hh said:
> On 7/20/24 10:14 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:06:24 -0400 :
>>
>>>> While I'm no fan of silly gimmicks (such as what AI appears to mostly
>>>> be), for Apple to be two generations behind Google is usually
>>>> considered bad.
>>>
>>> That depends on if Google is actually moving in the correct direction.
>>
>> Since I'm a rather well educated reasonably intelligent well-informed
>> adult, ...
>
> Tangible evidence of the veracity of that claim is severely lacking.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships with the
>> iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past, oh, five years?
>
> Already done: the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.
>
>
> -hh

Apple is reportedly working on foldable iPhones and iPads, but, as
usual, isn't going to release anything until it leapfrogs the other
makers ... in this case by eliminating the ugly crease down the display
and having devices flod out flat instead of having a small bulge in the
spine.

If those issues cannot be fixed to Apple's staisfaction, they won't
bother releasing foldable devices at all and leave that niche market
segment to the lesser quality brands.

On 7/21/24 10:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:35 -0400 :
>
>> On the contrary, the evidence is in the lack of news/drama when it comes
>> to product as deployed - the classical "it just works".
>
> While I'm well aware of the genius of Apple's lies of "It just works",
> let's teset that out, shall we?

With your cherrypicked example? That's lame from the outset.

>
> 1. I installed an app on iOS & Android long ago
> 2. It's no longer in the App Store on either platform
> 3. Which of the two platforms "just works" when I want to migrate
> that previously installed app onto any number of new devices?
>
> Hint: The Apple ecosystem never "just works".

That depends on why the App was discontinued.

> Let's test it again, but with a different set of common conditions:
> a. I want to have anonymity when using a web browser
> b. So I choose the canonical well-supported respected Tor Browser
> c. On which of the two platforms does the Tor browser "just work"?
>
> Hint: The Apple ecosystem almost never "just works".

Back when I tinkered with Tor, it worked just fine on a Mac.

> Do you want me to give you scores of similar examples,

No, a few scores is inadequate: your need to demonstrate that the
failures you claim clearly represent the majority of Apps & use cases on
the platform.

> HINT: The Apple ecosystem almost never "just works".
>
> If you think it does, that simply proves how gullible you are to Apple's
> admittedly brilliant advertising. Almost nothing "just works" on iOS.

But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.

You need to reconcile with how reality not aligning to your narrative.

-hh

On 2024-07-21 07:15, Andrew wrote:
> badgolferman wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:50:47 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>> AirTags are the standard tracking device right now. The Android version
>> still has a long way to go.
>>
>> https://www.tomsguide.com/phones/google-pixel-phones/an-unofficial-test-compared-apples-airtags-against-googles-find-my-device-heres-which-tracker-won
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> Please never forget I'm not stupid. Give me credit for being intelligent.
>
> I think you misunderstood what I said, and what I had asked, as I don't
> doubt the Apple customers fall for every marketing gimmick in the book.
>
> There's a huge difference between MARKETING & TECHNOLOGY.
> Apple can't innovate - but boy oh boy - can Apple market that they do!
>
> Never forget the difference please.
> Apple has a gullible herd following that rivals that of Marlboro.
>
> Marlboro sold Virginia Slims, remember - to gullible herd animals.
> Having gullible herd followings does not make the technology better.
>
> Even the "bold new colors" sell like hotcakes to Apple herd animals.
>
> But if you're going to tell me that "yellow phones" are an innovation that
> Android doesn't have, simply because Apple sells more yellow phones to its
> gullible herds, I'm going to push back on you for technology reasons.
>
> Remember, I never said Apple doesn't have the finest MARKETING in the
> world. What I said was Apple's R&D is the worst in terms of spending.
>
> As a result, Apple can't innovate.
> But man oh man... can Apple market.
>
> So just the fact that billions of gullible Apple owners fall prey to Apple
> marketing - like sheep led to slaughter - doesn't mean the technology has
> "leapfrogged" anyone.
>
> What's technologically better between the three airtags anyway?
> a. Apple (which came out in April 2021)
> b. Samsung (which came out at exactly the same time)
> c. Google (which is late to the game)
>
> I bet you don't know the answer.
>
> Notice if you don't know the answer, you are falling prey to Apple
> marketing because having billions of gullible idiots isn't technology.
>
> It's marketing.

Are you getting it, BGM?

-hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:06:21 -0400 :

> But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
> business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.

What you need to understand is that MARKETING is what Apple does best.
Not innovation.
Marketing.

Just like marketing is what coca cola does. And Marlboro. And Chevron.
You think "Virginia Slims" were innovation?
Or New Coke?

Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.
It's how Apple makes their money.

None of the big marketing companies make a better product.
But all of them spend way more in marketing than anyone else.

And as a result, all of them are highly profitable companies.
Because they sell their inferior product to gullible clueless people.

Like you are.

Nobody spends more in advertising than Apple & less than Apple in R&D.
It's a strategy that works as Apple is a highly profitable company.

There's a reason the iPhone is always five to ten years behind Android.
And why the iPhone always has far more active exploits than Android too.

On 2024-07-21 19:29, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:06:21 -0400 :
>
>> But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
>> business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.
>
> What you need to understand is that MARKETING is what Apple does best.
> Not innovation.
> Marketing.

Says you.

>
> Just like marketing is what coca cola does. And Marlboro. And Chevron.
> You think "Virginia Slims" were innovation?
> Or New Coke?
>
> Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.

False.

Apple spends more on R&D than all but three companies.

On 7/21/24 1:26 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2024-07-21, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:45 -0400 :
>>
>>>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships
>>>> with the iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past,
>>>> oh, five years?
>>>
>>> Already done: the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.
>>
>> I new you would never be able to back up your claim with even one
>> fact.
>
> Projection.
>
> Also, it's "knew".
>
> You'd think someone as bright as you claim to be would know that.
>

His bloomers are showing...again.

The problem that "Andrew" is having is a belief that no one company can
be successful unless they personally make every last component totally
in-house and that every last S&T project will immediately be fully
successful as originally envisioned.

Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs.
And it illustrates that "Andrew" has never worked professionally on
anything close to this stuff.

-hh

On 2024-07-21 16:09, -hh wrote:
> On 7/21/24 1:26 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2024-07-21, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>>> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:45 -0400 :
>>>
>>>>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships
>>>>> with the iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past,
>>>>> oh, five years?
>>>>
>>>> Already done:  the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.
>>>
>>> I new you would never be able to back up your claim with even one
>>> fact.
>>
>> Projection.
>>
>> Also, it's "knew".
>>
>> You'd think someone as bright as you claim to be would know that.
>>
>
> His bloomers are showing...again.
>
> The problem that "Andrew" is having is a belief that no one company can
> be successful unless they personally make every last component totally
> in-house and that every last S&T project will immediately be fully
> successful as originally envisioned.
>
> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs.
> And it illustrates that "Andrew" has never worked professionally on
> anything close to this stuff.

I'm also quite amused that Andrew/Arlen/...

....who knows how many more aliases...

....both argues that Apple doesn't make its own chips...

....AND that Apple is to blame when there's a problem with one.

:-)

On 2024-07-21 07:26, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:45 -0400 :
>
>>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships with the
>>> iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past, oh, five years?
>>
>> Already done: the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.
>
> I new you would never be able to back up your claim with even one fact.
> Your entire strongly held belief system is based on exactly zero facts.
>
> Given the reason Apple can't innovate due to Apple's historically paltry
> spend on R&D (and yet, Apple's spend on Marketing is enormous), it's not
> surprising that Apple hasn't been able to design a folding iPhone.
>
> As a result of the low R&D spend, Apple is years behind all others in tech.
>
> HINT: Integrated 5G modem design, GPUs, CPUs (sans unpatchable flaws), etc.

But according you, Apple doesn't actually design its own silicon, Arlen.

Can you explain?

On 2024-07-21 23:09:34 +0000, -hh said:

> On 7/21/24 1:26 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2024-07-21, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>>> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:03:45 -0400 :
>>>
>>>>> Can you name even a single smartphone technology that Apple ships
>>>>> with the iPhone that is higher quality than its peers over the past,
>>>>> oh, five years?
>>>>
>>>> Already done: the wisdom to still **not** ship folding displays.
>>>
>>> I new you would never be able to back up your claim with even one
>>> fact.
>>
>> Projection.
>>
>> Also, it's "knew".
>>
>> You'd think someone as bright as you claim to be would know that.
>>
>
> His bloomers are showing...again.
>
> The problem that "Andrew" is having is a belief that no one company can
> be successful unless they personally make every last component totally
> in-house and that every last S&T project will immediately be fully
> successful as originally envisioned.
>
> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs.
> And it illustrates that "Andrew" has never worked professionally on
> anything close to this stuff.
>
>
> -hh

Not really possible for him and his fellow trolls to work at anything
when they're locked inside the mental asylum.

Your Name wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:10:24 +1200 :

> Apple is reportedly working on foldable iPhones and iPads, but, as
> usual, isn't going to release anything until it leapfrogs the other
> makers ... in this case by eliminating the ugly crease down the display
> and having devices flod out flat instead of having a small bulge in the
> spine.
>
> If those issues cannot be fixed to Apple's staisfaction, they won't
> bother releasing foldable devices at all and leave that niche market
> segment to the lesser quality brands.

How far behind is Apple in integrated 5G modem design, Your Name?
Ten years?

Do you think had Apple spent their money on R&D instead of on marketing,
that Apple would have only been five years behind Android in 5G modems?

If not, why do you think Apple is always five to ten years behind Android?

On 2024-07-21 19:09, Andrew wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:10:24 +1200 :
>
>> Apple is reportedly working on foldable iPhones and iPads, but, as
>> usual, isn't going to release anything until it leapfrogs the other
>> makers ... in this case by eliminating the ugly crease down the display
>> and having devices flod out flat instead of having a small bulge in the
>> spine.
>>
>> If those issues cannot be fixed to Apple's staisfaction, they won't
>> bother releasing foldable devices at all and leave that niche market
>> segment to the lesser quality brands.
>
> How far behind is Apple in integrated 5G modem design, Your Name?
> Ten years?

How far behind is Apple on ARM-ISA CPUs?

>
> Do you think had Apple spent their money on R&D instead of on marketing,
> that Apple would have only been five years behind Android in 5G modems?

Apple spends way more on R&D than Qualcomm.

>
> If not, why do you think Apple is always five to ten years behind Android?

"Android" or "Qualcomm"?

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> badgolferman wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:50:47 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>> AirTags are the standard tracking device right now. The Android version
>> still has a long way to go.
>>
>> https://www.tomsguide.com/phones/google-pixel-phones/an-unofficial-test-compared-apples-airtags-against-googles-find-my-device-heres-which-tracker-won
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> Please never forget I'm not stupid. Give me credit for being intelligent.

And yet you don't acknowledge that badgolferman has come up with a good
example.

Prior to AirTags the market leader was Tile. Now Tile are struggling to be
relevant. The android solutions are desperate to join Apple's Find My
network.

> I think you misunderstood what I said

Everyone understands your one-sided, factless rhetoric.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>> .
>>
>> It's interesting how biased the ignorant uneducated low-IQ Apple religious
>> zealots are; but let's simply ask them to back up their claims by stating
>> even a *single* factual technological accomplishment Apple has had for the
>> iPhone in the past five years that they consider "leapfrogged" Android.
>>
>> Name just one.
>> We'll wait...
>>
>> HINT: These uneducated low-IQ religious zealots just make this stuff up.
>>
>
> AirTags?

Yup. Nothing comes close.

Not in the last five years, that's quite short period of time in such a
mature industry, but also AirPods (& Pros) and FaceID.

Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:29:01 -0000 (UTC) :

>> Please never forget I'm not stupid. Give me credit for being intelligent.
>
> And yet you don't acknowledge that badgolferman has come up with a good
> example.

I'm going to converse with you as if you own normal adult cognition, OK?

Look again. I told badgolferman right away that he was the only one who
suggested *anything* that the iPhone "leapfrogged" Android. I feted him.

However, I also note that AirTags are NOT an iPhone feature; so we're still
waiting for even a single iPhone feature that leapfrogged that of Android.

> Prior to AirTags the market leader was Tile. Now Tile are struggling to be
> relevant. The android solutions are desperate to join Apple's Find My
> network.

As I said I would be happy to find an iPhone feature that "leapfrogged" an
Android feature, instead of the iPhone being 5 to 10 years behind Android.

Since none of you can come up with even a single iPhone feature, that means
a. All of you have a strongly held belief system based on zero facts
b. Which is the definition of religious zealots (not sensible people)
>> I think you misunderstood what I said
>
> Everyone understands your one-sided, factless rhetoric.

I wonder if you strange people realize not a single one of you can come up
with even a single iPhone feature that "leapfrogged" Android recently.

Do you realize all of you prove my point?
a. Each of you have a strongly held belief iPhones leapfrogged Android.
b. And yet, none of you can name a SINGLE feature that the iPhone did that.

Q: Name a single iPhone feature that you believe "leapfrogged" Android.
A: ?

Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:27:32 -0000 (UTC) :

>>> It's interesting how biased the ignorant uneducated low-IQ Apple religious
>>> zealots are; but let's simply ask them to back up their claims by stating
>>> even a *single* factual technological accomplishment Apple has had for the
>>> iPhone in the past five years that they consider "leapfrogged" Android.
>>>
>>> Name just one.
>>> We'll wait...
>>>
>>> HINT: These uneducated low-IQ religious zealots just make this stuff up.
>>>
>>
>> AirTags?
>
> Yup. Nothing comes close.
>
> Not in the last five years, that's quite short period of time in such a
> mature industry, but also AirPods (& Pros) and FaceID.

*You do realize you've proven my point that Apple can't innovate*, right?
Even ignoring that all Apple can ever possibly do is copy existing Tiles...

Ask yourself this question:
Q: What has Apple done for the iPhone in the past five years
that you feel has leapfrogged Android phones in technology?
A: ?

Notice that none of you strange religious zealots can come up with even a
*single* technical improvement of the iPhone over Android phones.

Even if I grant you AirTags are well marketed - even as they're a silly
gimmick, they're not an iPhone technology - and even if they were - your
entire strongly held belief system would be based on only 1 fact.

Do you even realize you nutcases prove me right every time?
(The reason is simply that I'm right - but you need to understand that.)

You've proven my point that Apple can't innovate due to its lack of R&D.

Andrew wrote:

>However, I also note that AirTags are NOT an iPhone feature; so we're
>still waiting for even a single iPhone feature that leapfrogged that
>of Android.

AirTags are a hardware function of the iPhone feature FindMy. It is
because of FindMy that AirTags have become the standard among trackers.
As the document I provided shows, Apple's (iPhone) FindMy network is
far more robust than the Android Find My Device network for now.
Undoubtedly Google will get it sorted out at some time.

This is sort of a double-edged advantage though. Trackers are
considered anathema to those who value privacy. For iPhones to have an
advantage in something which devalues privacy is somewhat ironic.

On 7/21/24 10:32 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-07-21 19:29, Andrew wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:06:21 -0400 :
>>
>>> But if that were true, then Apple would have gone totally out of
>>> business a decade ago, due to non-delivery and Reversion to the Mean.
>>
>> What you need to understand is that MARKETING is what Apple does best.
>> Not innovation.
>> Marketing.
>
> Says you.

The corner that "Andrew" has painted himself into is that if the only
thing that Apple does is have superior marketing, then that is the
answer to his "what innovation does Apple do better?" troll.

>> Just like marketing is what coca cola does. And Marlboro. And Chevron.
>> You think "Virginia Slims" were innovation?
>> Or New Coke?
>>
>> Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.
>
> False.
>
> Apple spends more on R&D than all but three companies.

Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.

Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.

As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.

-hh

-hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :

> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>
> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>
> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.
>
> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.

An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.

The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on R&D as
a percentage of revenue - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total revenue.

Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.

It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.

HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.

Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated upon
in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.

Hint: You can't.

Why not?
Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.

Prove me wrong.
That's what an adult would do.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:29:01 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Please never forget I'm not stupid. Give me credit for being intelligent.
>>
>> And yet you don't acknowledge that badgolferman has come up with a good
>> example.
>
> I'm going to converse with you as if you own normal adult cognition, OK?
>
> Look again. I told badgolferman right away that he was the only one who
> suggested *anything* that the iPhone "leapfrogged" Android. I feted him.
>
> However, I also note that AirTags are NOT an iPhone feature; so we're still
> waiting for even a single iPhone feature that leapfrogged that of Android.

badgolfernan has already convinced of your misconception so I'll refer you
to him.

>
> Q: Name a single iPhone feature that you believe "leapfrogged" Android.
> A: ?

To repeat as you ignored it last time: AirPods (+ Pros) and FaceID. Android
equivalents for the airpods have since caught up, mostly, but not FaceID.
There's also the Automation/ShortCuts feature which doesn't have an
equivalent in android and includes the Geofencing functionality which you
lauded didn't exist.

Plus iphone security is currently uncrackable by the popular cracking tool
used by both law enforcement and others willing to pay the high fees:
https://www.techspot.com/news/103880-cellebrite-tools-cant-crack-iphones-running-ios-174.html

Android doesn't fare quite so well. For example, the Trump shooter had his
Samsung phone cracked:
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/techandscience/the-fbi-got-into-the-trump-rally-shooter-s-phone-in-just-40-minutes/ar-BB1qhMgY

On 7/22/24 11:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
> -hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :
>
>> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>>
>> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
>> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments. This leads us back
>> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
>> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
>> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one. Likewise, his
>> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
>> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>>
>> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
>> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
>> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
>> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
>> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple. Yeah, hypocritical.
>>
>> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
>> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.
>
> An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.
>
> The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on R&D as
> a percentage of revenue ...

Oh, look, "as a percentage of revenue..": its a goalpost move attempt!

> - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
> though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total revenue.

And of course you can clearly explain why that's relevant...right?

> Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.

Really? I was under the impression that the Android fanboys keep on
harping that the total worldwide Android sales is bigger than Apple.
Better go check your revenue numbers again...

....and especially not get them confused with net profits.

> It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
> Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
> is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.

*Yawn* others have already done so

>
> HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
> technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.

Because that's invalid because Tile isn't exclusively Android.

> Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated upon
> in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.
>
> Hint: You can't.

Well, there is Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight Feature: its innovative
enough that Meta has tried to file a patent clone/derivative of it:

<https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-meta-files-patent-designed-to-mimic-apple-vision-pros-eyesight-feature.html>

>
> Why not?
> Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.
>
> Prove me wrong.
> That's what an adult would do.

Already done, repeatedly. Now "adult up" and accept being wrong.

-hh

On 2024-07-22 12:16, -hh wrote:
> On 7/22/24 11:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> -hh wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:46:05 -0400 :
>>
>>> nds more on R&D than all but three companies.
>>>
>>> Plus Apple clearly does a lot of "Make or Buy" business assessments to
>>> decide on where to prioritize their R&D investments.  This leads us back
>>> to his belief that no one company can be successful unless they
>>> personally invent and make every last component totally in-house, which
>>> is totally absurd and followed by literally no one.  Likewise, his
>>> apparent belief (also quite absurd) that every S&T project is always and
>>> immediately fully successful as originally envisioned.
>>>
>>> Reality for both is quite distant from these beliefs, which is why even
>>> his attempts to worship Android fall far short of this vision, as
>>> illustrated by how Android handset manufacturers *also* have had to
>>> outsource their modem chips to Qualcomm rather than to invent & fab them
>>> in-house like he's trying to ask of Apple.  Yeah, hypocritical.
>>>
>>> As I said, it shows that "Andrew" has never professionally worked on any
>>> technological development efforts ... except perhaps as their janitor.
>>
>> An adult would prove me wrong - but a child acts like hh just did above.
>>
>> The fact remains that nobody in high tech spends less than Apple on
>> R&D as
>> a percentage of revenue ...
>
> Oh, look, "as a percentage of revenue..": its a goalpost move attempt!
>
>
>> - and - plenty of phone companies spend more even
>> though none are anywhere near the size of Apple in terms of total
>> revenue.
>
> And of course you can clearly explain why that's relevant...right?
>
>
>> Alan Baker cannot dispute that fact because it's a well known fact.
>
> Really?  I was under the impression that the Android fanboys keep on
> harping that the total worldwide Android sales is bigger than Apple.
> Better go check your revenue numbers again...
>
> ...and especially not get them confused with net profits.
>
>
>
>> It's that lack of R&D that explains why Apple is five to ten years behind
>> Android technology - which - if you want to disprove - all you have to do
>> is list what iPhone technology is better than similar Android technology.
>
> *Yawn* others have already done so
>
>>
>> HINT: It's just as absurd to claim that AirTags are exclusively iPhone
>> technology as it would be to claim that Tiles are exclusively Android.
>
> Because that's invalid because Tile isn't exclusively Android.
>
>
>
>> Name a *single* exclusively iPhone technology that Apple has innovated
>> upon
>> in the past five or ten years that is better than the equivalent Android.
>>
>> Hint: You can't.
>
> Well, there is Apple Vision Pro's EyeSight Feature:  its innovative
> enough that Meta has tried to file a patent clone/derivative of it:
>
>
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/07/monkey-see-monkey-do-meta-files-patent-designed-to-mimic-apple-vision-pros-eyesight-feature.html>
>
>>
>> Why not?
>> Because Apple doesn't invest in R&D; Apple is all about marketing.
>>
>> Prove me wrong.
>> That's what an adult would do.
>
> Already done, repeatedly.  Now "adult up" and accept being wrong.

Good luck with that.

Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 18:31:21 -0000 (UTC) :

>> However, I also note that AirTags are NOT an iPhone feature; so we're still
>> waiting for even a single iPhone feature that leapfrogged that of Android.
>
> badgolfernan has already convinced of your misconception so I'll refer you
> to him.

While I don't have to dumb down the messaging when I converse with
badgolferman, for you I'll summarize we badgolferman & I currently stand:
1. Apple UWB trackers (Android has them also)
2. Apple Wallet/Pay systems (Android has them also)
3. Apple Emergency Satellite messaging (not yet available on Android)
4. In-person store one-on-one free customer support

Of those four items where Apple is clearly more successful, only the latter
two are missing on Android, although Google is planning on shipping the
satellite phone feature (free for two years, just like Apple has done).

However, the point isn't whether or not Apple is slightly more successful
because if we wanted to go that route, we'd start comparing Siri to Google
Assistant or Apple Maps to Google Maps or Or Apple's App Store to Google's
App Store. Or Apple's CarPlay to Android Auto. Or we could even dive deeper
into the weeds comparing any number of millions of apps such as NewsTap to
GroundHog newsreaders - so we need to be careful to not just compare stuff
we like better but which is on both platforms.

What we want to find is something that is on Apple that is NOT on Android.
>> Q: Name a single iPhone feature that you believe "leapfrogged" Android.
>> A: ?
>
> To repeat as you ignored it last time: AirPods (+ Pros) and FaceID. Android
> equivalents for the airpods have since caught up, mostly, but not FaceID.

Unfortunately for you, for you to claim FaceID is anything but a (rather
brilliant) mere marketing gimmick is not going to sit well with me, since I
am well aware why Apple customers *need* such a gimmick which is not secure
but which is easy - which is because the iPhone is designed as a dumb
terminal which is always logged into Cupertino servers such that Apple
needs you to lock your phone more than you need to lock your phone.

I realize most Apple owners live in the slums, and that most Apple owners
alive in abject fear of the people around them - and they quake with fear
when their wives or children or friends or neighbors are anywhere near
their iPhone, but a "normal" person does not live in abject fear.

For example, I don't have a lock on my phone and my data is far more secure
than if it were on any iPhone ever designed - so just be advised that
telling me you fell for the oldest marketing gimmick in the book doesn't
bode well for you in that FaceID is a garbage gimmick for gullible iSheep.

Besides, even Android has the same garbage gimmick.

> There's also the Automation/ShortCuts feature which doesn't have an
> equivalent in android and includes the Geofencing functionality which you
> lauded didn't exist.

This is absurd. The automation on Android far surpasses anything on Apple.
I'm not even going to go there as you're desperate at this point.

> Plus iphone security is currently uncrackable by the popular cracking tool
> used by both law enforcement and others willing to pay the high fees:
> https://www.techspot.com/news/103880-cellebrite-tools-cant-crack-iphones-running-ios-174.html

Jesus Christ. You fall for every marketing gimmick in the book, Chris.
Do you know the iPhone is far more exploited than Android, Chris?
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

Do you realize that Android security for dozens of core modules is updated
monthly for every Android 10 device on the Internet while iOS is not?

Do you even realize that Pegasus often infects the iOS kernel and yet it
has NEVER been able to infect the Android kernel, Chris.

C'mon. You're grasping at straws by throwing marketing bullshit at us.
The fact is no phone is less secure than an Apple iPhone, Chris.

> Android doesn't fare quite so well. For example, the Trump shooter had his
> Samsung phone cracked:
> https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/techandscience/the-fbi-got-into-the-trump-rally-shooter-s-phone-in-just-40-minutes/ar-BB1qhMgY

The iPhone is the most exploited smartphone in history, Chris.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

There are three times as many zero-day holes in iOS than in Android too.

The fact you take a single case and try to make your entire point about
that one case shows how desperate you are to make a point that isn't valid.