From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-30 09:21:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same >>>>> things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.

Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.

Ask Apple to refund you the money you paid for the lack of sd card.

Apple also had iPhones *with* SD card? How much more did they cost?

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

This is irrelevant.

You said Apple should refund the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
But how can there be a "lack" if Apple never offered the same device
*with* sd card?

A Rolex Submariner is also much more expensive than a Casio WV-59.
Should Rolex also refund the money for not having accurate time because
it lacks a time signal reciever and even doesn't have basic functions
like an alarm, stop watch or timer like the Casio WV-59?
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-30 09:21:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:17 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a >>>> model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it. >>>> And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.

It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.

Telling people, that they lie if they say that an sd card is not
important for them is not "logic" but just stupid.

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

To owners of phones that lack basic functionality, it's "courageous".

Not for me. I just use the devices as I like.

You clearly don't realize what you did and what your thought process was.

I had servers long before I had a smartphone. My first website went
online around 1997 and I had the first server with more than just a
webspace around 2001.

You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

What exactly did *I* "buy back"?
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-30 09:21:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:26:12 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of >>> internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno. >>

No, because I already have the memory and thus the sd slot is *NOT*
"critically important" for me!

It's interesting that you don't seem to realize you proved my point.
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.

Yes. But it is still not "critically important" for me.

You don't seem to realize that it was critically important to you, Arno.

No, it wasn't.

Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?

Because I can afford it. I have enough money.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:36:52 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?

Because I can afford it. I have enough money.

This is a perfectly valid and logical perspective.

It's the same as to why I live in a high tax state because I can afford it.

So we understand each other where your decision is logical and sensible.
As is mine.

Specifically, you buy a high-end phone at price x with you amount of
storage while I have a low-end phone at a lower x and y but I match your y
with sd card storage (losing speed & reliability in the process but gaining portability).

Two people. Two different decisions. That's fine.
Especially when the decision is logical & sensible, I'm fine with it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:35:05 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

What exactly did *I* "buy back"?

We are both discussing two related but different sets of equations.

You paid x for a phone with y amount of storage.
From your perspective, you didn't buy anything back.
From your perspective, the storage came with the phone.

I understand your perspective (if that is an accurate portrayal of it).

My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage.
And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.

I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).

In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:32:08 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

This is irrelevant.

You said Apple should refund the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
But how can there be a "lack" if Apple never offered the same device
*with* sd card?

A Rolex Submariner is also much more expensive than a Casio WV-59.
Should Rolex also refund the money for not having accurate time because
it lacks a time signal reciever and even doesn't have basic functions
like an alarm, stop watch or timer like the Casio WV-59?

Fair enough. I accept your argument as logical and apropos.

The Apple "refund" was a figure of speech using hyperbole rhetorically.
As such, the action of a "refund" was not meant to be taken literally.

The figure of speech was used in order to provoke thought by my
highlighting of the flaw, not to demand action by Apple for a refund.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-08-01 04:12:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:35:05 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno. >>

What exactly did *I* "buy back"?

We are both discussing two related but different sets of equations.

You paid x for a phone with y amount of storage.
From your perspective, you didn't buy anything back.
From your perspective, the storage came with the phone.

I understand your perspective (if that is an accurate portrayal of it).

My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage. And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.

But then I would have a phone which would lack features, my current
phone has - like compatibility with a Quadlock case or an excellent camera.

I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).

In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.

Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 18:41:14 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage. >> And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.

But then I would have a phone which would lack features, my current
phone has - like compatibility with a Quadlock case or an excellent camera.

Yup. I agree with anyone who makes a sensible & logical statement.
As Frank tried to also say, the phones aren't 1:1 comparisons.

I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't >> even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).

In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.

Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.

Again, I never disagree with a logically sensible viewpoint from anyone. Storage is important - but it's not the only important feature to consider.

Some people like red phones, for example, and that rules their choice.
Others like one ecosystem over the other.
Still others might care about repair cost, or whatever.

We don't disagree.
We understand each other has a valid viewpoint. And that's OK.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Arno,

Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.

You're trying to go the way of sanity, considering pros and cons of the different qualities of the different phones. Arlen has shown several times
to be either unwilling or unable to do so.

As a famous movie once said "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2