Smartphone disease spreading

Davoud:
...
How many awards do iPhone photos have to win, how many iPhone photos
have to appear in prestigious magazines, how many Oscars do iPhone
movies have to win, before you grant it "real" status?

Tony Cooper:
This seems to be a favorite hobby horse of yours...

Am I the only one on Usenet who calls BS when he sees it?

To call and raise your objection, why do you single out iPhones and
not include phones that are not made by Apple? Isn't it rather
juvenile of you to imply that only iPhones have capable cameras?

I've always held to the axiom "Write about what you know." I've heard
tell that the iPhone imitators can also make good photos, and I've no
reason to doubt that, but I have no experience with the off-brand
phones. The imitators are certainly good enough for those who can't
afford iPhones.

As for pedantry, Molon pedantically insists that smartphone cameras are
not "real" cameras. That is patently untrue.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

"Davoud" wrote

| Isn't it rather juvenile of you....
|

| iPhone imitators....
| off-brand phones....
| The imitators are certainly good enough for those who can't
| afford iPhones....

You couldn't have done a better job of making
his point for him.

Davoud:
I've heard tell that the iPhone imitators can also make good photos,
and I've no reason to doubt that, but I have no experience with the
off-brand phones. The imitators are certainly good enough for those
who can't afford iPhones.

Tony Cooper:
Whoa! Talk about BS! Smartphones not made by Apple are imitators?
Off-brands?

Yes. Of all made things there can be only one original. Apple invented
the smartphone AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. That the imitators jumped on it is
no surprise; Apple is, after all, the most envied and imitated company
in the world.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

The hot buzz seems to be "computational
photography", which is little more than a
techie-sounding term for auto-photos.

absolutely wrong.



I wonder about the economics of it. Both
Android and iPhone now take RAW. Yet RAW-
capable cameras seem to start at over $500
retail. And who uses the RAW setting on their
phone? What's the point? On the other hand,
the upcoming iPhone is expected to be over
$1,000. What's wrong with this picture?

*one* of the upcoming iphones is expected to be over $1000, with very
advanced features that set it apart from the rest of the lineup.

there are cheaper iphones, starting at $399, and that is not going to
change.

android phones are similarly priced, with some even higher.

the red hydrogen android phone, which claims to have a holographic
display and multi-dimensional audio, is $1200-$1600, depending on
version, with prices after the initial batch not guaranteed. in other
words, it could be *higher*.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea.../red-hydrogen-
one-smartphone-price-specs-release
The company says the phone will ship in early 2018, and it¹s
currently available for preorder on RED¹s website. It starts at
$1,195 for the aluminum version, and there¹s also a $1,595 variant
made out of titanium.

http://downloads.red.com/hydrogen.pdf


the moto z is $720, with an optional camera mod for $300.
https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-z-force-droid-edition
https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/hasselblad-true-zoom


I don't understand why people aren't clamoring
for a market in basic phones that leave out the
features they don't really want or need. But maybe
that need is filled by various Android models.

because most people want more than a basic phone.

low end phones still exist, however, they don't sell particularly well.


In my contracting business I'm getting an
increasing number of people who email me
pictures of bathroom water damage or molding
design from their phones. They're good images.
Certainly good enough for me to see what I need
to. Are they talented photographers? I don't
know. Does it matter? They're just trying to
send me a clear picture of damaged drywall
and their camera is adequate to that task. It
makes things easier for me.... But I still think
they're idiots for spending so much on a phone.

and they think you're an idiot for using a tracfone or whatever it is
you have.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

To call and raise your objection, why do you single out iPhones and
not include phones that are not made by Apple? Isn't it rather
juvenile of you to imply that only iPhones have capable cameras?

I've always held to the axiom "Write about what you know." I've heard
tell that the iPhone imitators can also make good photos, and I've no
reason to doubt that, but I have no experience with the off-brand
phones. The imitators are certainly good enough for those who can't
afford iPhones.

Whoa! Talk about BS! Smartphones not made by Apple are imitators?

most of them copy whatever apple does, samsung in particular, who
copies everyone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-designs-2011-4

even samsung's own lawyers could *not* tell the difference between an
iphone and a samsung galaxy when the judge held them up in court, one
of many reasons why samsung lost that case. what really did them in was
samsung's internal documents that explicitly said to copy whatever
apple does. samsung even used apple's own icons in their stores.

here's a bunch more iphone copies, including one with a rather obvious
name, kiphone.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/15041...and-tabs/artic
le/six-iphone-6-look-alikes

Off-brands?

plenty of them.

there are a *lot* of off-brands making android phones that nobody has
ever heard of and who will likely not exist in a year or two.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


I saw a gold colour bentley with private plates outside a tesco express a few weeks
ago who buys a gold bentley and shops at tesco express ?

he spent all his money on the bentley.

In article ,
Whisky-dave says...
If your car workshop has poor lighting how will the workers see the scratches and be able to fix them effectively as you need a bit more than one florescant tube in the garage to do a good job.

It may be poor lighting for a smartphone, but good enough for a human.

In any case, cameras with larger sensors and good AF outperform
smartphones in low light or other challenging light conditions. They
have more dynamic range, less noise and better lenses (you can't change
a lens for a better one on a smartphone).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , MC
wrote:


Yes. Of all made things there can be only one original. Apple invented
the smartphone AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. That the imitators jumped on it is
no surprise; Apple is, after all, the most envied and imitated company
in the world.

Envied? certainly not. Imitated? I would be more inclined to say Apple
may have "inspired" other devices rather than being imitated. The fact
that more Android phones are sold than iPhones clearly shows that Apple
either do not have a product that everybody wants or that Apple are,
indeed, overpriced when compared to a similar or better specced
"alternative" smartphone.

nonsense. android phones with similar specs cost about the same or
more, and the top selling phones are iphones, limited by production
capacity.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/10/ipho...selling-smartp
hone-in-q1--strategy-analytics.html
€ The iPhone 7 was the world's best-selling smartphone in Q1
€ Apple's iPhone 7 Plus was the second best-selling device
€ Competitors lag far behind in terms of unit sales

I think it has already been established that the majority of those who
buy iPhones are already "fans" who have bought into the Apple name and
ethos.

nonsense again. the majority of iphone owners use windows.

Those who buy Android (or any other smartphone) do so because
they cannot justify the cost for an iPhone when an Android phone can do
the same or better job for a lot, lot less money. Either that or they
refuse to be part of the Apple club and the elitist attitudes that
Apple users seem try and propagate.

nonsense again.

the only attitude is from the haters.

"MC" wrote

|
| I think it has already been established that the majority of those who
| buy iPhones are already "fans" who have bought into the Apple name and
| ethos. Those who buy Android (or any other smartphone) do so because
| they cannot justify the cost for an iPhone when an Android phone can do
| the same or better job for a lot, lot less money. Either that or they
| refuse to be part of the Apple club and the elitist attitudes that
| Apple users seem try and propagate.
|

Wouldn't it be more fair to compare them to
computers? Probably most iPhones are bought
by people who use Macs, but just as with
computers, iPhones are perceived as being the
Cadillac. Much more money, but also ease of
use, stability and at least a perceived safety.
As well as a swank factor. Apple is the new AOL
and has been for a long time: People who want to
shop and not have to worry about technical
issues willingly pay more for the convenience
of not having to think about the details. Those
same people are not bothered by Apple lockdown.
They don't even see it.

I thought Vic Gundotra characterized it very
well. By controlling the hardware and software
completely, and charging through the nose, Apple
is able to more quickly and dependably make
stable improvements. That's exactly their selling
point with Mac vs Windows. You pay extra and
get less functionality, but what it does, it does
well and dependably.

In any case, there's no sense discussing it with
an AppleSeed. Davoud demonstrates a thoroughly
irrational dedication that's not susceptible to
logic.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Wouldn't it be more fair to compare them to
computers? Probably most iPhones are bought
by people who use Macs,

nope. most ios devices are bought by those who use windows.

but just as with
computers, iPhones are perceived as being the
Cadillac.

no. they're the toyotas of the world: well made, reliable and
affordable. they 'just work'.

you're the type of person who chooses a yugo. cheap, needs lots of
maintenance and mostly works.

Much more money, but also ease of
use, stability and at least a perceived safety.

not just perceived safety, but demonstrably safer.

android is a breeding ground for malware.

some android phones even ship with it built in:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/31/1...spended-androi
d-spyware-user-data-theft
Blu, a Miami-based budget Android phone company, has been
suspended from selling on Amazon after cybersecurity experts detailed
how software preloaded onto its devices collects sensitive user data
and sends it overseas, according to CNET

As well as a swank factor. Apple is the new AOL
and has been for a long time:

nonsense.

People who want to
shop and not have to worry about technical
issues willingly pay more for the convenience
of not having to think about the details.

there's nothing wrong with not needing to worry about technical issues.

what matters is doing the tasks that the user wants to do, not ****
around trying to get things to work.

Those
same people are not bothered by Apple lockdown.
They don't even see it.

only ios has restrictions, and it's not an issue except to those who
don't use it.

macs have zero restrictions.

I thought Vic Gundotra characterized it very
well. By controlling the hardware and software
completely, and charging through the nose, Apple
is able to more quickly and dependably make
stable improvements.

that's true, other than charging through the nose. apple products are
competitively priced, with similar spec devices costing about the same.

vic's point is that apple can innovate faster than android, and he's
right.

and remember, vic used to be at google.

That's exactly their selling
point with Mac vs Windows. You pay extra and
get less functionality, but what it does, it does
well and dependably.

nope. you pay about the same for similar functionality, many times less.

In any case, there's no sense discussing it with
an AppleSeed. Davoud demonstrates a thoroughly
irrational dedication that's not susceptible to
logic.

you demonstrate an irrational hatred of all things apple.