• Re: Why would anyone buy an extended warranty on a phone?

    From Tom Elam@thomas.e.elam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 5 13:05:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 7/29/2025 6:42 PM, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:01:04 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    Why do Apple owners buy their phones twice by paying for this garbage?

    Samsung offers almost the same plan for their phones and tablets. Why do
    Samsung owners buy this plan?

    That's a good question that I do not know the answer for so what I'll do is ask that question on the Android newsgroup to see if anyone is buying it.

    I doubt many Android owners would fall for the insurance plan trick though.

    Insurance is for things you can't replace, where a phone is something you
    can easily replace so it would be absurd for Samsung owners to buy it.

    I own a Samsung. I got it for free. Actually I paid $18 tax and then I
    added a $9 case plus a $3 screen plus a $20 sd card to multiply storage.

    Hence, my Samsung Galaxy A32-5G cost me about $50 in April of 2021.

    Standard AppleCare+ = $10.49/month = $1,258.80 for an iPhone 16.
    AppleCare+ with Theft and Loss = $11.99 /month = $1,438.80/10 years

    You're paying just for insurance, 26 times what my phone costs.

    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    How do you know anything about how many Apple devices have AppleCare?

    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a car. By
    your logic you should not insure your car.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Aug 6 22:22:51 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:05:37 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    We discussed this on this very newsgroup in April or May of 2021 and a
    bunch of people on this very newsgroup took advantage of the deal.

    How do you know anything about how many Apple devices have AppleCare?

    I don't think I said how many people buy this crappy insurance, as I
    wouldn't know why anyone would buy insurance on a commodity like a phone.

    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a car. By your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can replace
    it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old automobiles?

    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for. Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Aug 6 16:04:41 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-06 15:22, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:05:37 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    We discussed this on this very newsgroup in April or May of 2021 and a
    bunch of people on this very newsgroup took advantage of the deal.

    The "deal" doesn't make the phone free.

    It just means you're paying for a pretty basic phone month-by-month.


    How do you know anything about how many Apple devices have AppleCare?

    I don't think I said how many people buy this crappy insurance, as I
    wouldn't know why anyone would buy insurance on a commodity like a phone.

    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.


    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a car. By
    your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can replace
    it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old automobiles?

    Riiiiiiiight.


    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for. Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From sms@scharf.steven@geemail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 7 11:14:44 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 7/26/2025 12:03 AM, Marion wrote:

    https://9to5mac.com/2025/07/25/everything-you-need-to-know-about-applecare-one/
    "Apple has effectively turned extended warranties and insurance into
    a subscription product, with an ongoing monthly or annual payment."

    Many people, whether Android or iPhone users, don't know that there are alternatives.

    Several credit cards cover cell phone repairs if you pay your bill with
    the card, though it's much more of a hassle than using the extended
    warranty from the phone manufacturer, and not everything is covered. A
    biggie is cracked screens.

    From <https://www.wellsfargo.com/credit-cards/active-cash/guide-to-benefits/>:
    "This coverage reimburses You for the cost to repair or replace the Cell
    Phone in the event it is Damaged, Stolen, or is unrecoverable due to Involuntary and Accidental Parting. Cracked screens, cosmetic damage or scratches that do not impact the Cell Phone’s capabilities or
    functionality are not covered."

    I suspect that the most expensive, and most often used, covered repair
    with AppleCare is replacing cracked screens, which can cost up to $379
    without AppleCare.

    You used to be able to buy AppleCare+ without "Theft and Loss" coverage,
    but not anymore. It's $99 per year for AppleCare+ coverage.

    Hmm, I have two iPhones currently, both more than 5 years old, and have
    never needed a repair. I had one terrible LG Android device that LG
    replaced at no cost, but the replacement was also terrible.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 7 16:02:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/6/25 19:04, Alan wrote:
    On 2025-08-06 15:22, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:05:37 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    We discussed this on this very newsgroup in April or May of 2021 and a
    bunch of people on this very newsgroup took advantage of the deal.

    The "deal" doesn't make the phone free.

    It just means you're paying for a pretty basic phone month-by-month.

    Which has already been explained to him.


    How do you know anything about how many Apple devices have AppleCare?

    I don't think I said how many people buy this crappy insurance, as I
    wouldn't know why anyone would buy insurance on a commodity like a phone.

    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.

    Precisely, and from a business model standpoint, the insurance costs
    have to exceed the expected average cost of claims, plus overhead, in
    order for the insurance company to remain fiscally viable. This means
    that it is always statistically against the customer, yet they often
    elect to buy insurance anyway, for a variety of reasons.


    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a car. By >>> your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can
    replace
    it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old automobiles?

    Riiiiiiiight.

    Well, he does have one valid point here: the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for.
    Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.

    Its not merely if one can afford to. One needs adequate liquidity in
    order to self-insure, as well as the willingness to self-insure.

    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tom Elam@thomas.e.elam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 7 19:04:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/7/2025 4:02 PM, -hh wrote:
    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.

    Precisely, and from a business model standpoint, the insurance costs
    have to exceed the expected average cost of claims, plus overhead, in
    order for the insurance company to remain fiscally viable.  This means
    that it is always statistically against the customer, yet they often
    elect to buy insurance anyway, for a variety of reasons.


    True. You are betting that statistically small but expensive event will
    exceed the premiums.


    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a
    car. By
    your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can
    replace
    it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old automobiles?

    You should not normally carry collision or comprehensive on a 30 year. However, if it has market value as a collectable you might find it
    worthwhile. Liability is required by law in many states.

    Homeowner insurance is justified based on premium relative to market
    value. High risk areas - Florida coastline - with high premiums per
    $1000 value versus my case with a $500,000 home with a $1,181 annual
    premium for home, contents and liability is a no-brainer. I insure it.

    Riiiiiiiight.

    Well, he does have one valid point here:  the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    What if it is a low mileage 1965 Mustang in mint condition.


    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for.
    Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.

    I hate to admit it but I have had enough auto claims to make it
    worthwhile to insure my car.


    Its not merely if one can afford to.  One needs adequate liquidity in
    order to self-insure, as well as the willingness to self-insure.

    Yep. I never had an umbrella policy, even though I ran a business.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From sms@scharf.steven@geemail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 7 16:11:50 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/5/2025 10:05 AM, Tom Elam wrote:

    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    I suspect that it was "free" in the sense that there was no upfront
    cost. Typically, for mid-range phones like that it's "$0.00/month for 24 months with promotion." Now it's the A36 5G, a few years ago it was the
    A32 5G.

    Of course, as we all know, the cost of the phone is simply built into
    the monthly fees.

    I.e.:
    "Recurring promotional savings: $399.99

    Credit of $16.67 over 24 months

    If you cancel before 24 credits, credits stop and balance on required
    finance agreement may be due; contact us. For well-qualified customers,
    plus tax."

    The cheapest plan is $50 per month.

    I can buy that phone, unlocked, for about $380, paying about $15.83 per
    month, and then sign up for a prepaid plan for a lot less.

    Or I can buy it for about $200, locked for 60 days, buying two months of
    the least expensive plan from a Verizon MNO.

    If you're sticking with a carrier that offers monthly credits on phone purchases then it makes sense to take advantage of these offers since
    they're not giving you some other discount if you choose not to take the "free" phone.

    People that are bad at math think that they're getting a "free" phone.
    --
    “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
    really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
    indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
    they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 7 22:55:42 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/7/25 19:04, Tom Elam wrote:
    On 8/7/2025 4:02 PM, -hh wrote:
    Alan wrote:
    [Marion wrote]:
    ...

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can
    replace it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old
    automobiles?

    You should not normally carry collision or comprehensive on a 30 year. However, if it has market value as a collectable you might find it worthwhile. Liability is required by law in many states.

    Homeowner insurance is justified based on premium relative to market
    value. High risk areas - Florida coastline - with high premiums per
    $1000 value versus my case with a $500,000 home with a $1,181 annual
    premium for home, contents and liability is a no-brainer. I insure it.
    Perhaps Marion is admitting that they live in Florida and can't afford
    P&C (&/or its so run down that its uninsurable).

    I've seen both happen, as Florida's P&C (not even for "coastline")
    cracked 2% back in 2023 and is roughly 2.3% today. For a $500K home,
    that's over $11K/year just for P&C with no extra frills.
    Riiiiiiiight.

    Well, he does have one valid point here:  the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    What if it is a low mileage 1965 Mustang in mint condition.
    As they've not already said "Hemmings" ... hypotheticals need not apply.

    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for. >>>> Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.

    I hate to admit it but I have had enough auto claims to make it
    worthwhile to insure my car.

    Claims vs age tend to follow a "bathtub" curve.

    Its not merely if one can afford to.  One needs adequate liquidity in
    order to self-insure, as well as the willingness to self-insure.

    Yep. I never had an umbrella policy, even though I ran a business.

    Umbrellas are another tool too; never ran an enterprise without one;
    figure ~.05%


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 18:32:18 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-07 23:04:39 +0000, Tom Elam said:
    On 8/7/2025 4:02 PM, -hh wrote:
    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.

    Precisely, and from a business model standpoint, the insurance costs
    have to exceed the expected average cost of claims, plus overhead, in
    order for the insurance company to remain fiscally viable. This means
    that it is always statistically against the customer, yet they often
    elect to buy insurance anyway, for a variety of reasons.

    True. You are betting that statistically small but expensive event will exceed the premiums.


    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a car. By >>>>> your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can
    replace it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old
    automobiles?

    You should not normally carry collision or comprehensive on a 30 year. However, if it has market value as a collectable you might find it worthwhile. Liability is required by law in many states.

    My car is 30 years old. According to the insurance company and the
    local car auction business, it is worth somewhere between NZ$3000 and
    NZ$5000 ... but the greedy idiots on the local eBay clone website, are
    putting starting prices of about ten times that amount, between
    NZ$30,000 and NZ$40,000 (I haven't bothered tracking the sales, but I
    doubt any of them actually get bought).



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 09:54:56 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 16:02:31 -0400, -hh wrote :


    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    We discussed this on this very newsgroup in April or May of 2021 and a
    bunch of people on this very newsgroup took advantage of the deal.

    The "deal" doesn't make the phone free.

    It just means you're paying for a pretty basic phone month-by-month.

    Which has already been explained to him.

    T-Mobile gave all USA postpaid customers the same deal that I got.
    Like I did, badgolferman also took T-Mobile up on that same deal.

    We discussed this ad infinitum ever since Steve told us about the deal.
    The only cost to the phone was the imputed sales tax.

    In 2021, T-Mobile waived the $10 (at that time, now $20) SIM card fee.
    So I didn't even need to pop a SIM card out of the old phone into the new.

    The phone arrived with the correct charger, the correct SIM card, the
    correct charging cord, and even came with an aux port & an sd card slot.

    I did add a $20 or so SD card to the phone, so that cost me a bit extra.
    <https://i.postimg.cc/9FYksj3z/tmopromo05.jpg> 32GB portable memory
    Over time, I added a 128GB & then 512GB sd card, which also cost money.

    Yet, you Apple trolls are saying there are some other hidden costs????

    Maybe I'm stupid & you trolls are smarter than I (i.e., Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Tom Elam, -hh & Your Name) - which - if true - you can prove it.

    Where exactly are you Apple trolls claiming that I paid more than the 10% California tax on the MSRP of the "free phone" (which, let's be clear,
    required a 'trade in' of any phone (e.g., a flip phone is what I gave them which my neighbor gave to me for this purpose) which only had to boot up.

    There is no change in my service cost whether or not I got the free phone. There is no service contract with T-Mobile USA (you can drop it at will).

    T-Mobile puts a "lien" on your bill for the MSRP of the phone.
    And then each month that lien drops by 1/24th until it evaporates.

    Since I got the phone in April of 2021, the lien evaporated in 2023.
    Where exactly are you claiming that I am "paying more" for that free phone?

    How do you know anything about how many Apple devices have AppleCare?

    I don't think I said how many people buy this crappy insurance, as I
    wouldn't know why anyone would buy insurance on a commodity like a phone. >>
    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.

    Precisely, and from a business model standpoint, the insurance costs
    have to exceed the expected average cost of claims, plus overhead, in
    order for the insurance company to remain fiscally viable. This means
    that it is always statistically against the customer, yet they often
    elect to buy insurance anyway, for a variety of reasons.

    I'm actually pleasantly surprised that an Apple troll said that above. Shockingly, that shows rather clear thinking skills. I'm impressed.

    I agree with everything -hh stated about insurance profits above.
    The profits (and overhead) must be greater than the cost of insurance.

    Which means, on average, the customer loses.
    Unless they know something the insurance company doesn't know.

    Because then (and only then) the insurance company calculations would be
    overly optimistic in terms of how much money the insurance company makes.

    But if you tell the truth on insurance applications & claims, then, on
    average, you will always pay more for insurance than for the losses.

    Hence, it's a logical psychological conclusion that you probably should consider only paying insurance on things you can't very easily replace.

    Which a phone is.

    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a car. By >>>> your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can
    replace
    it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old automobiles?

    Riiiiiiiight.

    Well, he does have one valid point here: the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    All my vehicles are old because I maintain them myself, and, since I paid
    cash for them at the time I bought them new, I didn't need collision.

    I've written tutorials on how to mount and balance tires at home, for
    example, and how to replace the clutch (which I've done three times on the
    SUV) and how to replace brakes (which the SUV has drums in the rear), etc.

    If you can replace a cooling system or the A/C or a macpherson or chapman strut, or idler/pitman arm or ball joint, etc., auto maintenance is low.

    Since I never had an at-fault collision, it was a valid calculation,
    although I once broke the windshield when it was 10 years old by closing
    the hatch on a long PVC pipe which punched into the windshield, and just
    two years ago someone smashed a side window to steal my sunglasses in Santa Cruz at the beach. Also, someone hit me from behind and had to pay me.

    Remember, roughly half of the accidents will be the other guy's fault.
    You only need liability (which covers if they don't have insurance).

    In California, that's 15/30/5 which is way too little so of course I have
    much higher liability than that (as I also have an umbrella policy).

    But to insure a car that isn't worth the money for insurance is folly.

    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for.
    Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.

    Its not merely if one can afford to. One needs adequate liquidity in
    order to self-insure, as well as the willingness to self-insure.

    Again, I'm pleasantly surprised that you, a known Apple troll, are speaking intelligently & logically reasonably. Kudos to you for that conversation.

    I own multiple homes so it's not likely all will burn down at the same
    time, although a big earthquake might take them all down at once. :)

    Of course, if I moved into one of them, I'd lose the rent, but my main
    point you seem to understand, which is that insurance is a calculation.

    a. In the end, overall, on average, you will always lose money
    b. Unless you know something that the insurance company doesn't know
    c. But if you tell the truth on claims & forms, you can't win

    All you get out of insurance is being able to fix/replace something that
    you wouldn't otherwise be able to fix/replace it - which is valuable.

    But not for a phone.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 10:24:13 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 19:04:39 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.

    Precisely, and from a business model standpoint, the insurance costs
    have to exceed the expected average cost of claims, plus overhead, in
    order for the insurance company to remain fiscally viable. This means
    that it is always statistically against the customer, yet they often
    elect to buy insurance anyway, for a variety of reasons.

    True. You are betting that statistically small but expensive event will exceed the premiums.

    I will agree with anyone, no matter their history, who states a logically sensible viewpoint, where I agree with both Tom Elam and -hh on insurance.

    Out here, in the Santa Cruz mountains, fire & earthquakes are high
    probability, but the insurance is prohibitively expensive for them also.

    We have to keep in mind that the insurance company knows that a fire or earthquake out here will hit EVERY HOME in the area, which raises their
    risk tremendously.

    There are things that won't hit every home (e.g., a tree falling on the
    roof) and there are things that hit EVERY HOME IN THE AREA, which makes
    them NOT want to insure the area.

    If you did buy fire or earthquake insurance out here, it would be tens of thousands of dollars per year per home - which is just too much cost.

    Remember, there are ways to ameliorate fire & earthquake damage, which we
    do, e.g., every home has a wharf hydrant, and I have a pool & tile roof,
    and we are required by law to clear 10 feet around our homes of growth.

    Also, we have something out here called a fire department; and we have something called building codes which ameliorate possible damages.

    The point is that risk doesn't go from zero to infinity; you ameliorate the risk by having fire equipment at home and by building to earthquake codes.

    Instead of wasting those tens of thousands per year on an insurance policy. Same with your phone.

    Instead of buying super-expensive Apple iPhone insurance, why not spend
    some of that out-of-pocket money on a case and screen protector instead?

    Cars are easily replaced. Expensive, but not a problem finding a
    car. By
    your logic you should not insure your car.

    I don't even insure my house, Tom, because it's paid for and I can
    replace
    it if I ever need to. So why would I insure my 30-year old automobiles?

    You should not normally carry collision or comprehensive on a 30 year. However, if it has market value as a collectable you might find it worthwhile. Liability is required by law in many states.

    My vehicles are a bimmer and a few Toyotas, none of which are
    collectibles. The bimmer is always broken but the Toyota's last forever.

    IMHO, BMW is like Apple. All marketing and almost zero engineering outside
    of the drive train & suspension, which are stellar (but the whole system doesn't work together when all the parts that aren't in the drive train and suspension constantly fail - like the damn window regulators or seat adjust cables or DISA valve or the CCV valve or the Behr expansion tank, etc.).

    Homeowner insurance is justified based on premium relative to market
    value. High risk areas - Florida coastline - with high premiums per
    $1000 value versus my case with a $500,000 home with a $1,181 annual
    premium for home, contents and liability is a no-brainer. I insure it.

    Again, this is justified and is a logically sensible argument, where it's
    tens of thousands of dollars a year to insure homes in the Santa Cruz
    mountains for fire and/or earthquake - simply because it's likely to happen
    and no home is cheap in this area of California.

    The problem with fire & earthquake in California for the insurance company
    is that one fire or one earthquake can put them out of business since EVERY home is likely to be affected.

    They prefer to insure things that only happen to one home, like a tree
    falling on the roof but not every house in town being totally destroyed.

    Riiiiiiiight.

    Well, he does have one valid point here: the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    What if it is a low mileage 1965 Mustang in mint condition.

    Heh heh heh... my 5-speed manual 4-banger Toyota SUV is a great vehicle,
    but it's not a collectible. Neither is the bimmer or Camry. Nor the beemer.

    Since I do all maintenance myself on my three cars, the maintenance costs
    (and risk) is low, where I'm learning at this very moment how to do my own alignment so I picked up a camber gauge & toe plates on Amazon for free but
    I haven't yet gotten turn plates on Vine for free.
    <https://amazon.com/vine/about>

    If you want advice as to how to mount and balance your wheels/tires at
    home, let me know as I just also got a duckbill from Amazon for free which
    adds ease of mounting tires to the harbor freight tire-mounting tools.
    <https://i.postimg.cc/k5FYJQc7/amazon-score.jpg>
    <https://i.postimg.cc/3x3nL4h6/amazon-trust.jpg>
    <https://i.postimg.cc/L6jnqvHj/amazon-vine-home.jpg>

    I only insure liability. Not damage or replacement which I can pay for. >>>> Insurance is never a good deal unless you can't replace what is lost.

    I hate to admit it but I have had enough auto claims to make it
    worthwhile to insure my car.

    As I said, it's fantastic that you (Tom Elam) and -hh are speaking
    sensibly, as I agree with ANYONE who makes a logically sensible claim.

    If you know something the insurance company doesn't know, then insurance
    can be a GREAT investment since premiums will be lower than otherwise.

    It's a gamble but at least it's a better gamble if you know something they don't know - such as not telling them you have cancer when you have it.

    I used to get the "good student discount" for years when I went to school, where they factored in that into my premiums where I was surprised that motorcycles (as badgolferman might know for his Honda Gold Wing) cost less
    to insure than cars, even for liability.

    I once asked them why my K1200 was cheaper than my car in liability and the salesperson told me that you can't do as much damage (which seemed strange
    to me as you can always cause a 10-car pileup on a California highway).

    Note: They're no longer "free" so I won't call them 'freeways'.

    Its not merely if one can afford to. One needs adequate liquidity in
    order to self-insure, as well as the willingness to self-insure.

    Yep. I never had an umbrella policy, even though I ran a business.

    Umbrella policies seem to be "relatively" inexpensive for some reason.
    I guess it's because they're the last to pay - but I'm not sure why.

    Thank you for a delightful conversation devoid of Apple marketing!
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 10:37:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 22:55:42 -0400, -hh wrote :

    Homeowner insurance is justified based on premium relative to market
    value. High risk areas - Florida coastline - with high premiums per
    $1000 value versus my case with a $500,000 home with a $1,181 annual
    premium for home, contents and liability is a no-brainer. I insure it.
    Perhaps Marion is admitting that they live in Florida and can't afford
    P&C (&/or its so run down that its uninsurable).

    Ummm.. I've been on this ng for, oh, I don't know, almost as long as it has existed, & I've *always* said I lived in the Santa Cruz mountains.

    Everyone who is here knows that. So if you do not know it, why not?

    I've seen both happen, as Florida's P&C (not even for "coastline")
    cracked 2% back in 2023 and is roughly 2.3% today. For a $500K home,
    that's over $11K/year just for P&C with no extra frills.

    This reference says premiums are $5,000 to $12,000/year per 300K of value.
    <https://getsafeandsound.com/blog/average-fire-insurance-cost-california/>

    Trust me, no home is less than a million and most are multiple millions.
    Add it up.

    I hate to admit it but I have had enough auto claims to make it
    worthwhile to insure my car.

    Claims vs age tend to follow a "bathtub" curve.

    I'm much older than 70 where it used to be anyone at 70 must take the
    drivers test again but they relaxed it for those with clean records.

    But every 5 years I have to renew in person to take the eye exam.
    And that damn photo keeps making me look older and older and older.

    Its not merely if one can afford to. One needs adequate liquidity in
    order to self-insure, as well as the willingness to self-insure.

    Yep. I never had an umbrella policy, even though I ran a business.

    Umbrellas are another tool too; never ran an enterprise without one;
    figure ~.05%

    The umbrella is surprisingly affordable for some reason.

    PS: Thank you for NOT acting like an Apple troll, where your comments above
    are devoid of marketing bullshit - which is a welcome thing on this ng.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 10:57:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 16:11:50 -0700, sms wrote :


    I doubt seriously that your phone was free.

    I suspect that it was "free" in the sense that there was no upfront
    cost. Typically, for mid-range phones like that it's "$0.00/month for 24 months with promotion." Now it's the A36 5G, a few years ago it was the
    A32 5G.
    Of course, as we all know, the cost of the phone is simply built into
    the monthly fees.
    I.e.:
    "Recurring promotional savings: $399.99
    Credit of $16.67 over 24 months
    If you cancel before 24 credits, credits stop and balance on required finance agreement may be due; contact us. For well-qualified customers,
    plus tax."
    The cheapest plan is $50 per month.
    I can buy that phone, unlocked, for about $380, paying about $15.83 per month, and then sign up for a prepaid plan for a lot less.
    Or I can buy it for about $200, locked for 60 days, buying two months of
    the least expensive plan from a Verizon MNO.
    If you're sticking with a carrier that offers monthly credits on phone purchases then it makes sense to take advantage of these offers since they're not giving you some other discount if you choose not to take the "free" phone.

    People that are bad at math think that they're getting a "free" phone.

    That point is widely understood, so Steve's suggestion that I'm ignorant of
    it seems not only inaccurate but also unnecessarily adversarial. It's hard
    not to see it as more of a rhetorical tactic than a sincere observation.

    I've been on T-Mobile for more than a decade, so I didn't "choose" a plan.
    I'm already on a plan, which I've shown the bill for many times on this ng.
    <https://i.postimg.cc/YC1B906F/tmopromo01.jpg> A32-5G & iPhone 12 contract
    <https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15/mo iPhone,$0/mo Android
    <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 fees

    Steve is comparing a pre-paid plan to a post-paid plan, which isn't about
    the phone - it's about the plan - where nobody mentioned pre-paid plans.

    Steve is well known to go to immense lengths on phone plans to get a good
    deal, and all the power to him for doing so - as this deal that both badgolferman and I took T-Mobile up on in 2021 was advertised by Steve.

    But, for Steve to then say "people that bad at math" for not paying for a pre-paid plan, is both combative & disingenuous, especially as both Steve
    and I are trained EE's who are known to be particularly good at math.

    Hence, Steve is being unfair in his assessments, in that he doesn't seem to understand that the monthly service we each pay is the same whether or not
    we get the free phone, which is the classic definition of the cost.

    On the global scale, Steve is certainly correct that if T-Mobile has a
    million customers and half a million of them get a $200 "free" phone, then T-Mobile needs to fold into their service cost that $100 million for all customers in order to cover these free phones to half their customers.

    It's common knowledge, so for Steve to imply I'm unaware of corporate calculations feels less like a genuine misunderstanding and more like an purposefully unfair characterization. At best, Steve is being dismissive,
    and at worst, Steve comes across as intentionally misleading all of us.

    Whether or not any one customer takes T-Mobile up on their offer of a free phone doesn't change THEIR bill one cent (other than for the sales tax).

    For Steve to claim otherwise is not only bad math, but deceitful.
    An apology is due from Steve.

    What's the chance Steve will apologize like a decent man would do?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 09:06:44 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/8/25 06:37, Marion wrote:
    On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 22:55:42 -0400, -hh wrote :

    Homeowner insurance is justified based on premium relative to market
    value. High risk areas - Florida coastline - with high premiums per
    $1000 value versus my case with a $500,000 home with a $1,181 annual
    premium for home, contents and liability is a no-brainer. I insure it.
    Perhaps Marion is admitting that they live in Florida and can't afford
    P&C (&/or its so run down that its uninsurable).

    Ummm.. I've been on this ng for, oh, I don't know, almost as long as it has existed, & I've *always* said I lived in the Santa Cruz mountains.

    Which "this ng"? This is being cross-posted between CSMA and MPMI.

    Everyone who is here knows that. So if you do not know it, why not?

    Possibilities include:

    a) different "this ng";

    b) you've not been an important enough contributor to pay attention to;

    c) A & B.


    I've seen both happen, as Florida's P&C (not even for "coastline")
    cracked 2% back in 2023 and is roughly 2.3% today. For a $500K home,
    that's over $11K/year just for P&C with no extra frills.

    This reference says premiums are $5,000 to $12,000/year per 300K of value.
    <https://getsafeandsound.com/blog/average-fire-insurance-cost-california/>

    $5K/$300K = 1.7% and $12K/$300K = 4%, so the basic observation applies: homeowners who can't afford P&C (&/or the property is uninsurable).

    For FL, the rate of uninsured homeowners is estimated at 15%-20%, with
    the latter being the newest estimates; roughly 2x that of CA>


    Trust me, no home is less than a million and most are multiple millions.
    Add it up.

    How about a 3BR/2BA with a $59K asking price *and* in Santa Cruz, CA?

    Its at 2395 Delaware Ave, #126

    Here's the listing; it looks to be just ~400m from the water:

    <https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2395-Delaware-Ave-126-Santa-Cruz-CA-95060/453069643_zpid/>


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 09:16:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/8/25 02:32, Your Name wrote:
    ...
    My car is 30 years old. According to the insurance company and the local
    car auction business, it is worth somewhere between NZ$3000 and
    NZ$5000 ... but the greedy idiots on the local eBay clone website, are putting starting prices of about ten times that amount, between
    NZ$30,000 and NZ$40,000 (I haven't bothered tracking the sales, but I
    doubt any of them actually get bought).


    If I did the currency conversion correctly, that's like roughly US$3000.

    Locally (US East Coast), the proverbial "anything which still runs" is
    easily worth that much.

    For example, a neighbor just dropped US$15K last month for a 15 year old compact Japanese SUV (Sorry, I forget which make/model). Pre-CoVid, I would've considered that to be nearly ~twice what it was probably worth.
    But the markets have changed...supply & demand and all that bit.

    -hh



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 10:29:44 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-08 06:06, -hh wrote:
    On 8/8/25 06:37, Marion wrote:
    On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 22:55:42 -0400, -hh wrote :

    Homeowner insurance is justified based on premium relative to market
    value. High risk areas - Florida coastline - with high premiums per
    $1000 value versus my case with a $500,000 home with a $1,181 annual
    premium for home, contents and liability is a no-brainer. I insure it.
    Perhaps Marion is admitting that they live in Florida and can't afford
    P&C (&/or its so run down that its uninsurable).

    Ummm.. I've been on this ng for, oh, I don't know, almost as long as
    it has
    existed, & I've *always* said I lived in the Santa Cruz mountains.

    Which "this ng"?  This is being cross-posted between CSMA and MPMI.

    Everyone who is here knows that. So if you do not know it, why not?

    Possibilities include:

    a)  different "this ng";

    b)  you've not been an important enough contributor to pay attention to;

    c)  A & B.


    I've seen both happen, as Florida's P&C (not even for "coastline")
    cracked 2% back in 2023 and is roughly 2.3% today.  For a $500K home,
    that's over $11K/year just for P&C with no extra frills.

    This reference says premiums are $5,000 to $12,000/year per 300K of
    value.
      <https://getsafeandsound.com/blog/average-fire-insurance-cost-
    california/>

    $5K/$300K = 1.7% and $12K/$300K = 4%, so the basic observation applies: homeowners who can't afford P&C (&/or the property is uninsurable).

    For FL, the rate of uninsured homeowners is estimated at 15%-20%, with
    the latter being the newest estimates; roughly 2x that of CA>


    Trust me, no home is less than a million and most are multiple millions.
    Add it up.

    How about a 3BR/2BA with a $59K asking price *and* in Santa Cruz, CA?

    Its at 2395 Delaware Ave, #126

    Here's the listing; it looks to be just ~400m from the water:

    <https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2395-Delaware-Ave-126-Santa-Cruz- CA-95060/453069643_zpid/>
    Oh, no!

    You mean Arlen ("Marion") wasn't speaking factually???
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 16:00:02 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/8/25 05:54, Marion wrote:
    ...
    Maybe I'm stupid & you trolls are smarter than I (i.e., Alan Baker, Jolly Roger, Tom Elam, -hh & Your Name) - which - if true - you can prove it.

    Already accomplished.


    Every choice to buy insurance is a gamble.

    Precisely, and from a business model standpoint, the insurance costs
    have to exceed the expected average cost of claims, plus overhead, in
    order for the insurance company to remain fiscally viable. This means
    that it is always statistically against the customer, yet they often
    elect to buy insurance anyway, for a variety of reasons.
    ...
    Which means, on average, the customer loses.
    Unless they know something the insurance company doesn't know.

    Because then (and only then) the insurance company calculations would be overly optimistic in terms of how much money the insurance company makes.

    But if you tell the truth on insurance applications & claims, then, on average, you will always pay more for insurance than for the losses.

    Hence, it's a logical psychological conclusion that you probably should consider only paying insurance on things you can't very easily replace.

    Incorrect, as has already been explained: there's more factors under consideration than merely if one can afford it or not. Another example
    is one of personal convenience & time savings. If you've ever had an
    accident with a rental car while not paying for the carrier's insurance,
    you'd have a better insight on these ramifications.

    Well, he does have one valid point here: the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    All my vehicles are old because I maintain them myself, and, since I paid cash for them at the time I bought them new, I didn't need collision.
    Except that paying cash isn't really a factor which determines if
    insurance is required: it is the party who holds the title who decides.

    Car loans commonly require having collision & comprehensive: they're the
    party who's primarily incurring the risk of loss, so its their decision
    they make as a condition of the loan. Don't like that? Go elsewhere.
    I've written tutorials on how to mount and balance tires at home...
    Irrelevant, although that does reinforce that your opinion is quite
    likely being biased by your financial situation & ability to afford.

    But to insure a car that isn't worth the money for insurance is folly.

    Hence, your's ain't no collectable(s). As you posted separately:

    My vehicles are a bimmer and a few Toyotas, none of which are
    collectibles. The bimmer is always broken but the Toyota's last forever.

    If your BMW is broken down all the time, blame its mechanic. Ditto for
    the rest of the hulks resting on cinder blocks in the yard.
    I own multiple homes ...
    With or without counting the garden shed in back? /s
    Of course, if I moved into one of them, I'd lose the rent, but my main
    point you seem to understand, which is that insurance is a calculation.
    None of which has anything to do with insurance, so its not clear why
    this aside was mentioned. Copying Tommy's brag attempts?
    All you get out of insurance is being able to fix/replace something that
    you wouldn't otherwise be able to fix/replace it - which is valuable.
    No, that's not the only thing that one gets out of insurance, since one
    can insure for more than one's present net worth: a classic example of
    that is of life insurance, especially of term life when young.

    But not for a phone.Maybe, maybe not: depends on one's free cash flow, as well as other
    personal factors, including time.


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Aug 9 10:24:36 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-08 13:16:45 +0000, -hh said:
    On 8/8/25 02:32, Your Name wrote:
    ...
    My car is 30 years old. According to the insurance company and the
    local car auction business, it is worth somewhere between NZ$3000 and
    NZ$5000 ... but the greedy idiots on the local eBay clone website, are
    putting starting prices of about ten times that amount, between
    NZ$30,000 and NZ$40,000 (I haven't bothered tracking the sales, but I
    doubt any of them actually get bought).

    If I did the currency conversion correctly, that's like roughly US$3000.

    Roughly ...
    Insurance / auction company = US$1,775 to US$2,980.
    Sellers on eBay clone = US$17,870 to US$23,740

    Obviously still around ten times as much on the eBay clone website.

    My own guesstimate given, the popularity of the model and the number of
    people who ask if it is for sale, would be around NZ$10,000 / US$5930
    ... over twice as much as the insurance value.

    Either way, the problem is that the insurance payout would never pay
    for a replacement, whether that's the same model or a newer similar car
    ... but then that's usually one of the many problems with insurance. I
    could pay more in premiums for a higher insurance value of course, and
    the insurance company would be "more than happy" to accept extra money,
    while still wriggling their way out as much as they can get away with
    of actually paying out for any claim attempts.



    Locally (US East Coast), the proverbial "anything which still runs" is easily worth that much.

    For example, a neighbor just dropped US$15K last month for a 15 year
    old compact Japanese SUV (Sorry, I forget which make/model).
    Pre-CoVid, I would've considered that to be nearly ~twice what it was probably worth. But the markets have changed...supply & demand and
    all that bit.

    -hh


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Aug 8 23:05:44 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:00:02 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Hence, it's a logical psychological conclusion that you probably should
    consider only paying insurance on things you can't very easily replace.

    Incorrect, as has already been explained: there's more factors under consideration than merely if one can afford it or not. Another example
    is one of personal convenience & time savings. If you've ever had an accident with a rental car while not paying for the carrier's insurance, you'd have a better insight on these ramifications.

    It's surprising that a known Apple troll can think logically.
    I'm impressed. Yes, I fully understand many factors are involved.

    Not just cost.
    There's psychology for example, where insurance buys away FUD.

    There's also convenience. If you are hit by an insured driver, and if you
    don't have collision, then it's up to you to fight it out with the company.

    It's actually easier, paradoxically, if the other driver is uninsured.
    Ask me how I know this.

    So -hh is correct that insurance is a complex commodity after all.

    Well, he does have one valid point here: the cost of collision
    insurance on their 30 year old clunker isn't a good value.

    All my vehicles are old because I maintain them myself, and, since I paid
    cash for them at the time I bought them new, I didn't need collision.
    Except that paying cash isn't really a factor which determines if
    insurance is required: it is the party who holds the title who decides.

    Yes. True. Again you show you own critical thought processes.

    My point of saying cash (which was actually credit card) was I owned it.
    If you own the vehicle, there's no title holder to require coverage.

    Car loans commonly require having collision & comprehensive: they're the party who's primarily incurring the risk of loss, so its their decision
    they make as a condition of the loan. Don't like that? Go elsewhere.

    Not only car loans. House loans too. They all require insurance coverage.
    Only if you own the title do you get to choose what kind of coverage.

    I've written tutorials on how to mount and balance tires at home...
    Irrelevant, although that does reinforce that your opinion is quite
    likely being biased by your financial situation & ability to afford.

    I've mounted my own tires my whole life, but I've been retired for about 20 years, so there's not a lot of income but that doesn't matter for this.

    My point is some people are self sufficient; some are not.

    But to insure a car that isn't worth the money for insurance is folly.

    Hence, your's ain't no collectable(s). As you posted separately:

    My vehicles are a bimmer and a few Toyotas, none of which are
    collectibles. The bimmer is always broken but the Toyota's last forever.

    If your BMW is broken down all the time, blame its mechanic. Ditto for
    the rest of the hulks resting on cinder blocks in the yard.

    Well, it's clear you've never owned a bimmer or beemer or Toyota then.
    I was making a point about design styles - which are hugely different.

    I own multiple homes ...
    With or without counting the garden shed in back? /s

    I'm not sure why you feel you need to insult, but insult away.
    I've been on Usenet for decades - I don't think you'll make me leave.

    Of course, if I moved into one of them, I'd lose the rent, but my main
    point you seem to understand, which is that insurance is a calculation.
    None of which has anything to do with insurance, so its not clear why
    this aside was mentioned. Copying Tommy's brag attempts?

    My point was about catastrophic losses that encompass wide areas.
    Didn't you understand it?

    It's one of the most important considerations any insurance has.
    If you don't understand that concept, you may need to learn a lot more.

    All you get out of insurance is being able to fix/replace something that
    you wouldn't otherwise be able to fix/replace it - which is valuable.
    No, that's not the only thing that one gets out of insurance, since one
    can insure for more than one's present net worth: a classic example of
    that is of life insurance, especially of term life when young.

    Well, this is true, but I'm an octogenarian, so I don't know what they'll charge for life insurance, but I'm not planning on getting it anytime soon.

    Still, I agree that some things like life insurance are valued at many
    times what the current earnings of a person are - but they are valued at
    the approximation of the total earnings of that person over his lifetime.

    Hence, yet again, the calculation is against you unless you happen to know something that the insurance company doesn't know (like if you smoke).

    But not for a phone.Maybe, maybe not: depends on one's free cash flow, as well as other
    personal factors, including time.

    Well, the whole point is that people who buy the extended warranty on a
    phone are quite a different kind of person than a normal person is.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Aug 9 14:56:01 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/8/25 19:05, Marion wrote:
    On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 16:00:02 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Hence, it's a logical psychological conclusion that you probably should
    consider only paying insurance on things you can't very easily replace.

    Incorrect, as has already been explained: there's more factors under
    consideration than merely if one can afford it or not. Another example...

    So -hh is correct...

    As per usual; "Film at 11".

    Car loans commonly require having collision & comprehensive: they're the
    party who's primarily incurring the risk of loss, so its their decision
    they make as a condition of the loan. Don't like that? Go elsewhere.

    Not only car loans. House loans too. They all require insurance coverage. Only if you own the title do you get to choose what kind of coverage.

    Within what one can afford, & within what the insurer is willing to
    cover. Some carriers can stipulate having a satisfactory inspection;
    thus why I included "uninsurable" as well as affordability.

    I've written tutorials on how to mount and balance tires at home...
    Irrelevant, although that does reinforce that your opinion is quite
    likely being biased by your financial situation & ability to afford.

    I've mounted my own tires my whole life, but I've been retired for about 20 years, so there's not a lot of income but that doesn't matter for this.

    My point is some people are self sufficient; some are not.

    Oh, so you grow your own rubber trees and make your own tires? /s

    Of course there's nothing wrong with DIYing as much as one reasonably
    wants to, so long as it is what one actually wants to do, as opposed to needing to do so due to constrained options, especially when one can't
    admit said constraint as one's true underlying motivator.
    But to insure a car that isn't worth the money for insurance is folly.

    Hence, your's ain't no collectable(s). As you posted separately:

    My vehicles are a bimmer and a few Toyotas, none of which are
    collectibles. The bimmer is always broken but the Toyota's last forever.

    If your BMW is broken down all the time, blame its mechanic. Ditto for
    the rest of the hulks resting on cinder blocks in the yard.

    Well, it's clear you've never owned a bimmer or beemer or Toyota then.They've made the short list and I've taken test drives, but have ended
    up choosing other products instead.

    A friend does vouch for his F22 BMW 240i daily driver, but the current version's no longer from DEU, nor does BMW offer ED anymore. Plus from
    a more pragmatic standpoint, I don't park on my lawn, so I'm effectively
    out of convenient parking room. Its why I sold my MB Coupé awhile back.
    Perhaps its more of the luxury of choice, as all of my vehicles run. /s

    I was making a point about design styles - which are hugely different.

    Not successfully, for you compared their reliability, not style.

    I own multiple homes ...

    With or without counting the garden shed in back? /s

    I'm not sure why you feel you need to insult, but insult away.

    Merely noting your compensation attempt like Tommy does.

    We've already seen that Santa Cruz real estate isn't all $1M+; being a
    slum lord from some old oublewides just isn't much of a prosperity flex.

    I've been on Usenet for decades - I don't think you'll make me leave.
    Ah, its the old "decades" brag attempt. Was that because you had AOL?
    Of course, if I moved into one of them, I'd lose the rent, but my main
    point you seem to understand, which is that insurance is a calculation.

    None of which has anything to do with insurance, so its not clear why
    this aside was mentioned. Copying Tommy's brag attempts?

    My point was about catastrophic losses that encompass wide areas.
    Didn't you understand it?Yup: your clustering of your real estate to be vulnerable to a singular
    event is *your* personal failure to have adequate risk diversification.

    It's one of the most important considerations any insurance has.
    If you don't understand that concept, you may need to learn a lot more.

    How ironic is it ...

    That the one who's concerned that a single natural event could take out
    their entire real estate investment ...

    ... is trying to preach risks to those who didn't fail to diversify?

    All you get out of insurance is being able to fix/replace something that >>> you wouldn't otherwise be able to fix/replace it - which is valuable.

    No, that's not the only thing that one gets out of insurance, since one
    can insure for more than one's present net worth: a classic example of
    that is of life insurance, especially of term life when young.

    Well, this is true, but I'm an octogenarian, so I don't know what they'll charge for life insurance, but I'm not planning on getting it anytime soon.

    Your personal failure to plan isn't relevant to the example.
    Still, I agree that some things like life insurance are valued at many
    times what the current earnings of a person are - but they are valued at
    the approximation of the total earnings of that person over his lifetime.

    Hence, yet again, the calculation is against you unless you happen to know something that the insurance company doesn't know (like if you smoke).

    But not for a phone.
    Maybe, maybe not: depends on one's free cash flow, as well as other
    personal factors, including time.

    Well, the whole point is that people who buy the extended warranty on a
    phone are quite a different kind of person than a normal person is.
    Its not really your place to try to claim who is "normal" or not.

    From a little bit of research, it appears that customers buy extended warranties less frequently for Apple iPhone than Android: 18% vs 24%.

    More work would be needed to drill down to the causal reasons for the difference. Hypothesis to be tested could include:

    * Causality is to customer wealth (greater ability to self-insure) which
    then correlates to Apple customers being more affluent for the outcome;

    * Product reliability differences: Apple has a good reliability
    reputation (and/or Android has a poor reputation) affecting uptake;

    * Differences in warranty product marketing/customer awareness,
    including differences in salesman commissions to motivate sales;


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Aug 10 22:41:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 14:56:01 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Of course there's nothing wrong with DIYing as much as one reasonably
    wants to, so long as it is what one actually wants to do, as opposed to needing to do so due to constrained options, especially when one can't
    admit said constraint as one's true underlying motivator.

    In general, there are a few people who understand complicated things, and
    there are even more people who do not understand complicated things.

    Those who understand things, can DIY.
    Those who do not understand things, cannot DIY.

    The operative word there is "can", since I do agree with you that "can" and "want to" are two different things (as is "having to" do it).

    1. Some people are intelligent, so they "can" DIY complicated things.
    2. Most people are incredibly stupid, so they "can't" handle complexity.
    3. Still others, can handle it, but don't want to handle it.
    4. And yet others can't afford to have someone else do the work.

    My whole life I did my own work as I've never been to a mechanic.
    Even when I was 18, I worked on my own cars and bikes.

    Hell, when I was 10 or 15 or so, I fixed my own bicycles too.
    I've always been someone who can DIY.

    But most people aren't intelligent enough to understand complicated things. Those people can not DIY. It's a function of capabilities.

    Just like it is with insurance, in a roundabout way.
    I can afford to not have insurance; many people can not.

    However, my premise is EVERYONE can afford not to have phone insurance.
    Since a phone is a cheap commodity.

    I was making a point about design styles - which are hugely different.

    Not successfully, for you compared their reliability, not style.

    Well, I didn't mean "style" as in "stylish" but as in "philosophy".
    BMW engineers are atrocious at building the complete system.
    But BMW engineers are some of the best in the world in designing suspension systems and drive trains.

    Their philosophy is that only the drive train & suspension matters.
    The rest they don't care about.

    So everything breaks.
    Constantly.
    Because it sucks.

    Compare that to a Toyota.
    Big difference.

    Well, the whole point is that people who buy the extended warranty on a
    phone are quite a different kind of person than a normal person is.
    Its not really your place to try to claim who is "normal" or not.

    Well, anyone who pays for something they definitely do not need to pay for, (like phone insurance) is already making poor decisions. I guess your point
    is that such stupid people are normal, where the intelligent people are of
    a higher order than a normal person (who is incredibly stupid).
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Aug 10 17:11:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-10 15:41, Marion wrote:
    On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 14:56:01 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Of course there's nothing wrong with DIYing as much as one reasonably
    wants to, so long as it is what one actually wants to do, as opposed to
    needing to do so due to constrained options, especially when one can't
    admit said constraint as one's true underlying motivator.

    In general, there are a few people who understand complicated things, and there are even more people who do not understand complicated things.

    Those who understand things, can DIY.
    Those who do not understand things, cannot DIY.

    The operative word there is "can", since I do agree with you that "can" and "want to" are two different things (as is "having to" do it).

    1. Some people are intelligent, so they "can" DIY complicated things.
    2. Most people are incredibly stupid, so they "can't" handle complexity.
    3. Still others, can handle it, but don't want to handle it.
    4. And yet others can't afford to have someone else do the work.

    My whole life I did my own work as I've never been to a mechanic.
    Even when I was 18, I worked on my own cars and bikes.

    Hell, when I was 10 or 15 or so, I fixed my own bicycles too.
    I've always been someone who can DIY.

    But most people aren't intelligent enough to understand complicated things. Those people can not DIY. It's a function of capabilities.

    I love the way you put that immediately following a paragraph where you
    talk about something that's utterly UNcomplicated.

    LOL!


    Just like it is with insurance, in a roundabout way.
    I can afford to not have insurance; many people can not.

    However, my premise is EVERYONE can afford not to have phone insurance.
    Since a phone is a cheap commodity.

    I was making a point about design styles - which are hugely different.

    Not successfully, for you compared their reliability, not style.

    Well, I didn't mean "style" as in "stylish" but as in "philosophy".
    BMW engineers are atrocious at building the complete system.
    But BMW engineers are some of the best in the world in designing suspension systems and drive trains.

    Their philosophy is that only the drive train & suspension matters.
    The rest they don't care about.

    You have no clue at all about what the philosophy of BMW is.


    So everything breaks.
    Constantly.
    Because it sucks.

    Compare that to a Toyota.
    Big difference.

    Is there?

    Prove it.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Aug 10 20:45:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/10/25 18:41, Marion wrote:
    On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 14:56:01 -0400, -hh wrote :

    Of course there's nothing wrong with DIYing as much as one reasonably
    wants to, so long as it is what one actually wants to do, as opposed to
    needing to do so due to constrained options, especially when one can't
    admit said constraint as one's true underlying motivator.

    In general, there are a few people who understand complicated things, and there are even more people who do not understand complicated things.

    Those who understand things, can DIY.
    Those who do not understand things, cannot DIY.

    The operative word there is "can", since I do agree with you that "can" and "want to" are two different things (as is "having to" do it).

    Gosh, that's a lot of deflecting words to try to distract from the point
    of the reality of financial constraints.
    {more tangential deflection words}

    Just like it is with insurance, in a roundabout way.
    I can afford to not have insurance; many people can not.

    Evidence to support that claim ... is lacking.


    However, my premise is EVERYONE can afford not to have phone insurance.
    Since a phone is a cheap commodity.

    I was making a point about design styles - which are hugely different.

    Not successfully, for you compared their reliability, not style.

    Well, I didn't mean "style" as in "stylish" but as in "philosophy".

    There's those who can articulate clearly, and those ... /s

    BMW engineers are atrocious at building the complete system.
    But BMW engineers are some of the best in the world in designing suspension systems and drive trains.

    Their philosophy is that only the drive train & suspension matters.
    The rest they don't care about.>
    So everything breaks.
    Constantly.
    Because it sucks.

    Nope. You're conflating design intent with designer skill or quality.

    Compare that to a Toyota.
    Big difference.

    Because of a different design intent, partly due to Deming.
    Well, the whole point is that people who buy the extended warranty on a
    phone are quite a different kind of person than a normal person is.
    Its not really your place to try to claim who is "normal" or not.

    Well, anyone who pays for something they definitely do not need to pay for, (like phone insurance) is already making poor decisions. I guess your point is that such stupid people are normal, where the intelligent people are of
    a higher order than a normal person (who is incredibly stupid).
    Nope, my point was in the portion you "bravely" snipped so as to avoid
    comment on it. That behavioral act was telling in of itself.

    Now go get a job so that you can actually afford to get your alleged BMW running; follow the original designer's operational intent instead of
    trying to impose your own opinion on it: you'll be far less frustrated.


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tom Elam@thomas.e.elam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Aug 11 10:06:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 7/26/2025 12:03 AM, Marion wrote:
    https://9to5mac.com/2025/07/25/everything-you-need-to-know-about-applecare-one/

    "Apple has effectively turned extended warranties and insurance
    into a subscription product, with an ongoing monthly or annual payment."

    The plan costs $1,200 over the life of a single iPhone.

    Never mind that your math is totally fubar -

    Another AppleCare+ example. My iPhone 14 was starting to charge
    erratically. Wiggling the charging cable left-to-right while it was
    plugged in would make it stop charging if you moved it right.

    My first cell phone, circa 1998, stopped charging just after it went out
    of 1 year warranty. Had to buy another one. Bad experience.

    BUT, this time I just took the iPhone over to the local Apple Store,
    confident that if it was the charging port it could be fixed or even
    replaced under AppleCare+ terms. It took about 5 minutes to repair. Accumulated lint in the port that the store rep cleaned out. If the
    Apple rep had screwed up the port in the process so be it. The peace of
    mind knowing I would not be buying another phone is worth the monthly
    premium to me.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Aug 11 15:33:54 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:45:15 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Gosh, that's a lot of deflecting words to try to distract from the point
    of the reality of financial constraints.

    It's refreshing that -hh actually owns critical thinking skills.
    This critical-thinking process is rather uncommon for Apple trolls.

    To his point, I said in my *first* response that you insure that which you can't afford to replace. If you're so destitute that you can't even afford
    to replace your phone, then maybe it would be worth it to pay twice for
    that phone (which is what the warranty costs) not to have to pay to replace
    it.

    But given how much the Apple extended warranty costs, paying twice for a
    phone is no different financially than buying the phone if you lost it.

    The only difference is in the lump sum payment versus paying every month.


    BMW engineers are atrocious at building the complete system.
    But BMW engineers are some of the best in the world in designing suspension >> systems and drive trains.

    Nope. You're conflating design intent with designer skill or quality.

    Again, you own critical thought processes.
    While BMW 525i cupholders, seats tilts, Behr expansion tankss, CCV valves & Dormand window regulators are legendary for failing - all in the same way
    for everyone, the drivetrain & suspension is also legendary for
    performance.

    It's not that BMW engineers don't have the skill.
    They're just not paid to think the whole system through.

    They're paid to make only some parts legendary.
    So marketing can sell people on *those* components.

    BMW is all marketing and very little overall system quality after all.
    Sound familiar?

    Compare that to a Toyota.
    Big difference.

    Because of a different design intent, partly due to Deming.

    Interesting you attribute Toyota Production Systems (aka Lean
    Manufacturing) to W. Edwards Deming who Shoichiro Toyoda once said there
    wasn't a day he didn't think about how Dr. Deming influenced their quality.

    At Toyota, every component is engineered for longevity and integration.

    BMW prioritizes performance and driving dynamics too often at the expense
    of long-term reliability in non-drivetrain systems. Perhaps an analagous personality would be Christopher Weil (who emphasized BMW's "design DNA" of
    the kidney grill and Hofmeister kink) or Kai Langer (who emphasized the technical lighthouse of the sculptural aesthetic).
    <https://www.bmw.com/en/freude/the-bmw-hofmeister-kink.html>

    Toyota: Function over form.
    BMW: Form over function.

    Back to the topic of the extended warranty, it's obvious why herd animals
    would buy whatever the mothership tells them to buy, where in the end, they
    end up buying every iPhone twice.

    Meanwhile, I had my free Galaxy replaced by T-Mobile. Twice. Always free.
    This is all well discussed over the years in the Android newsgroup.

    There's a reason I consider Apple marketing the best in the world.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Aug 11 15:34:55 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 10:06:03 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    Another AppleCare+ example. My iPhone 14 was starting to charge
    erratically. Wiggling the charging cable left-to-right while it was
    plugged in would make it stop charging if you moved it right.

    My first cell phone, circa 1998, stopped charging just after it went out
    of 1 year warranty. Had to buy another one. Bad experience.

    BUT, this time I just took the iPhone over to the local Apple Store, confident that if it was the charging port it could be fixed or even replaced under AppleCare+ terms. It took about 5 minutes to repair. Accumulated lint in the port that the store rep cleaned out. If the
    Apple rep had screwed up the port in the process so be it. The peace of
    mind knowing I would not be buying another phone is worth the monthly premium to me.

    I broke my (free) Galaxy. Twice. This has been discussed on the Android ng.
    I went to the T-Mobile store, and they replaced my phone. Twice. Free.

    Oh, and I didn't need to pay twice for the phone just to buy the warranty.
    The double warranty on my (free) Android phones was free.

    I had two Samsung Galaxy A32-5G phones replaced for free by T-Mobile.
    This is common knowledge as we've discussed it in the Android newsgroup.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Aug 11 14:20:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/11/25 11:33, Marion wrote:
    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:45:15 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Gosh, that's a lot of deflecting words to try to distract from the point
    of the reality of financial constraints.

    It's refreshing that -hh actually owns critical thinking skills.
    This critical-thinking process is rather uncommon for Apple trolls.

    To his point, I said in my *first* response that you insure that which you can't afford to replace. If you're so destitute that you can't even afford
    to replace your phone, then maybe it would be worth it to pay twice for
    that phone (which is what the warranty costs) not to have to pay to replace it.

    To which you were told that you were wrong, because you were shown that there's more valid reasons than only 'affordability'.



    BMW engineers are atrocious at building the complete system.
    But BMW engineers are some of the best in the world in designing suspension >>> systems and drive trains.

    Nope. You're conflating design intent with designer skill or quality.

    Again, you own critical thought processes.
    While BMW 525i cupholders, seats tilts, Behr expansion tankss, CCV valves & Dormand window regulators are legendary for failing - all in the same way
    for everyone, the drivetrain & suspension is also legendary for
    performance.

    Failing ... but at what point in the product lifecycle?

    It's not that BMW engineers don't have the skill.
    They're just not paid to think the whole system through.

    They're paid to make only some parts legendary.
    So marketing can sell people on *those* components.
    Incorrect: you're trying to impose your own criteria after the fact,
    and with little/no awareness of other design factors or constraints.
    Common ones here are cost & weight.


    BMW is all marketing and very little overall system quality after all.
    Sound familiar?For you, since you've already failed at holistic system analysis. /s



    Compare that to a Toyota.
    Big difference.

    Because of a different design intent, partly due to Deming.

    Interesting you attribute Toyota Production Systems (aka Lean
    Manufacturing) to W. Edwards Deming who Shoichiro Toyoda once said there wasn't a day he didn't think about how Dr. Deming influenced their quality.

    At Toyota, every component is engineered for longevity and integration.

    Nope, that's not Lean nor Deming. Better go back to Google more.


    BMW prioritizes performance and driving dynamics too often at the expense
    of long-term reliability in non-drivetrain systems.


    Nah, that's your personal *belief* of what design trades they're making.

    And while I did say "if your BMW is broken down all the time, blame its mechanic", its more astute to blame the mechanic & owner, as they're
    showing that they're not willing to support maintenance expenses.

    Its an object, so everything's a wear item; see "Ship of Theseus"


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Aug 11 20:17:21 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:20:11 -0400, -hh wrote :


    To his point, I said in my *first* response that you insure that which you >> can't afford to replace. If you're so destitute that you can't even afford >> to replace your phone, then maybe it would be worth it to pay twice for
    that phone (which is what the warranty costs) not to have to pay to replace >> it.

    To which you were told that you were wrong, because you were shown that there's more valid reasons than only 'affordability'.

    We agreed. I don't have to repeat *everything* that we already agreed on.

    By the way, I think I may remove you from the list of Apple trolls because
    you appear to own critical thinking skills. Which is unusual for this ng.

    Kudos to you for the ability to exercise independent thought processes.
    BTW, I opened a new thread on the true cost of this extended warranty.

    *Thought Question: How many times do Apple owners buy each iPhone?*
    Message-ID: <107dhf4$2tbf$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

    When I ran the math, it wasn't twice. It was 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 times the
    original cost of the iPhone, so it's actually better than I had thought.

    Don't think for a moment Apple's strategy doesn't take this into account.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Aug 11 19:33:40 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/11/25 16:17, Marion wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:20:11 -0400, -hh wrote :


    To his point, I said in my *first* response that you insure that which you >>> can't afford to replace. If you're so destitute that you can't even afford >>> to replace your phone, then maybe it would be worth it to pay twice for
    that phone (which is what the warranty costs) not to have to pay to replace >>> it.

    To which you were told that you were wrong, because you were shown that
    there's more valid reasons than only 'affordability'.

    We agreed. I don't have to repeat *everything* that we already agreed on.

    If that was actually the case, then your comment would have noted that
    you were wrong, not tried to double-down on your false statement.

    You got caught in your duplicity.

    ...

    Just as how you have your slip showing now with your attempt to snip the
    other corrections and reintroduce your dead horse agenda. Facts are
    that there's many different ways to calculate insurance rates and what
    you're trying to insinuate has very little bearing.

    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 12 01:40:38 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:33:40 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Facts are
    that there's many different ways to calculate insurance rates and what you're trying to insinuate has very little bearing.

    There is only one way to calculate true costs, and that's to add them up.

    Take a look at the thread I referenced where AppleCare pushes up the cost
    of the iPhone to the point that you pay double the original price.

    Unless you trade that iPhone in after four years of paying for AppleCare.

    Then you only paid 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 the price of the iPhone since you get
    about 1/2 the price back on the original price paid for the iPhone.

    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 12 09:05:35 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/11/25 21:40, Marion wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:33:40 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Facts are
    that there's many different ways to calculate insurance rates and what
    you're trying to insinuate has very little bearing.

    There is only one way to calculate true costs, and that's to add them up.

    Which only works in a deterministic world.
    Unfortunately for you, insurance is stochastic.

    Take a look at the thread I referenced where AppleCare pushes up the cost
    of the iPhone to the point that you pay double the original price.

    Irrelevant, for what matters are the rates of warranty claims, with
    their respective costs. What the actual insured product happens to be
    (phone, car, house, person) doesn't change these business principles.
    Unless you trade that iPhone in after four years of paying for AppleCare.

    Then you only paid 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 the price of the iPhone since you get
    about 1/2 the price back on the original price paid for the iPhone.

    Since that's ignoring warranty claim rates & costs, that's grossly crude
    & erroneous, which is why you came to invalid conclusions.
    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone.
    But the average product costs aren't irrelevant. Since iPhones trend to
    be more expensive, where did you appropriately & correctly normalize
    this variable out? Because failure to do so is a rookie mistake.


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 12 17:27:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:05:35 -0400, -hh wrote :


    There is only one way to calculate true costs, and that's to add them up.

    Which only works in a deterministic world.
    Unfortunately for you, insurance is stochastic.

    Again and again, you show an aptitude for critical thought processes.
    Hence, you're decidedly not a common Apple troll - who simply cannot.

    I wonder why you defend Apple products to the death then?
    I'm not sure why, as I'd think you'd act more like a normal person would.

    Anyway, you're correct insurance models are stochastic in nature.

    Where you're correct is that premium:claim ratios are not deterministic
    when making estimates on whether or not the insurance will be worth it
    simply because there is an unknown of whether or not bad things happen.

    But wait....

    There's a way around that randomness and uncertainty.
    Which is how I calculated whether or not the insurance was worth it.

    You assume an average of 2 events needing insurance, one big & one small.
    In the four years, that's one event on average every two years.

    Is it deterministic? Nope.
    But it becomes strategically predictable.

    My calculations were not pure randomness; they were informed estimation.

    Take a look at the thread I referenced where AppleCare pushes up the cost
    of the iPhone to the point that you pay double the original price.

    Irrelevant, for what matters are the rates of warranty claims, with
    their respective costs. What the actual insured product happens to be (phone, car, house, person) doesn't change these business principles.

    Again, you show an aptitude for understanding, which is non existent in the common Apple troll so I must rethink why I considered you a common troll.

    Sure, the principles of risk pooling and pricing based on claim rates and
    costs are consistent across insurance types. But the nature of the insured product absolutely influences how those principles play out in practice.

    A phone warranty deals with frequent, low-cost claims. A house? Infrequent, high-cost, and often influenced by external systemic risks like natural disasters or market shifts. A person? Now you're in the realm of health, mortality, and behavioral unpredictability.

    So yes, the math behind insurance is universal, but the inputs,
    assumptions, and volatility vary wildly depending on what's being insured.

    That's not just a detail as it's the difference between modeling something
    as simple as a cracked screen versus modeling an entire human life.

    Unless you trade that iPhone in after four years of paying for AppleCare.

    Then you only paid 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 the price of the iPhone since you get
    about 1/2 the price back on the original price paid for the iPhone.

    Since that's ignoring warranty claim rates & costs, that's grossly crude
    & erroneous, which is why you came to invalid conclusions.

    Hmmm... now you're talking like an Apple troll since I took into account
    the warranty claims. I assumed one major and one minor claim in 4 years.

    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone.
    But the average product costs aren't irrelevant. Since iPhones trend to
    be more expensive, where did you appropriately & correctly normalize
    this variable out? Because failure to do so is a rookie mistake.

    Now you're talking back like a normal person and less like an Apple troll.

    Sure, Android phones cost from free to just as much or more than iPhones. iPhones only cost in the high end, so we have to take that into account.

    Most of the time the easiest way to take that into account is to compare similar phones, but since an iPhone will always lack functionality compared
    to Android, the big problem there is no similar phone can ever be found.

    But at least we can compare similarly priced phones.

    We've done this in the past, where I asked the team to pick two phones, and then I would compare the costs, where badgolferman chose the two phones.

    When I compared them, as I recall, the iPhone was about twice as expensive.
    We used real life data. Even Steve couldn't object to the real numbers.

    The overall cost of ownership of an iPhone is always going to be about
    twice that of similarly priced Androids, and the iPhone functionality will
    be about half (which is a known factor but harder to assess the value of).

    Anyway, back to the original topic, if people want to pay an arm and a leg (plus huge deductibles) for a warranty that I got for free, all the power
    to them, as it increases Apple's profits tremendously when they do so.

    But I don't want to ever hear them claim Apple makes better product just because Apple has ungodly profits - as the reason those profits are high is that Apple marketing tells the Apple customer what to do & they just do it.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 12 14:29:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/12/25 13:27, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:05:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

    Anyway, you're correct ...

    As per usual; "Film at 11".


    Where you're correct is that premium:claim ratios are not deterministic
    when making estimates on whether or not the insurance will be worth it
    simply because there is an unknown of whether or not bad things happen.

    But wait....

    There's a way around that randomness and uncertainty.

    Which is stochastic.

    Which is how I calculated whether or not the insurance was worth it.

    You assume an average of 2 events needing insurance, one big & one small.
    In the four years, that's one event on average every two years.

    Is it deterministic? Nope.

    Incorrect: you're trying to use a deterministic method in the absence
    of you having the stochastic data to do it correctly.

    But it becomes strategically predictable.Because at best its a first order approach. It isn't sufficient for a
    competitive business who wants to actually stay in business to use.

    My calculations were not pure randomness; they were informed estimation.
    Numbers you made up because you lack stochastic data to do it correctly.

    ...Sure, the principles of risk pooling and pricing based on claim rates and costs are consistent across insurance types. But the nature of the insured product absolutely influences how those principles play out in practice.

    Which are manifest in claim rates & claim costs (one's stochastic data).

    A phone warranty deals with frequent, low-cost claims.

    Interesting claim ... but got substantiating data? Didn't think so.

    A house? Infrequent, high-cost, and often influenced by external
    systemic risks like natural disasters or market shifts.

    Maybe. There's others which you're clearly unaware of.

    A person? Now you're in the realm of health,
    mortality, and behavioral unpredictability.

    Maybe. There's others which you're clearly unaware of.
    So yes, the math behind insurance is universal, but the inputs,
    assumptions, and volatility vary wildly depending on what's being insured.

    Nevertheless, they're all approached the same: stochastically.

    That's not just a detail as it's the difference between modeling something
    as simple as a cracked screen versus modeling an entire human life.

    A device dies; a person dies: is there really a difference?
    Unless you trade that iPhone in after four years of paying for AppleCare. >>>
    Then you only paid 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 the price of the iPhone since you get
    about 1/2 the price back on the original price paid for the iPhone.

    Since that's ignoring warranty claim rates & costs, that's grossly crude
    & erroneous, which is why you came to invalid conclusions.

    Hmmm... now you're talking like an Apple troll since I took into account
    the warranty claims. I assumed one major and one minor claim in 4 years.Keyword "assumed". Unless the policy is restricted to only two claims,
    you've not been quantitatively honest on its value estimate.

    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone. >> But the average product costs aren't irrelevant. Since iPhones trend to
    be more expensive, where did you appropriately & correctly normalize
    this variable out? Because failure to do so is a rookie mistake.

    Now you're talking back like a normal person and less like an Apple troll.

    So did you normalize out this factor, or didn't you?

    Sure, Android phones cost from free to just as much or more than iPhones. iPhones only cost in the high end, so we have to take that into account.

    So did you normalize out this factor, or didn't you?


    Most of the time the easiest way to take that into account is to compare similar phones, but since an iPhone will always lack functionality compared to Android, the big problem there is no similar phone can ever be found.

    But at least we can compare similarly priced phones.

    That requires modulation based on the respective service plans; did you?


    The overall cost of ownership of an iPhone is always going to be about
    twice that of similarly priced Androids, and the iPhone functionality will
    be about half (which is a known factor but harder to assess the value of).

    Was TCO been normalized by lifespan? Because iPhones are known to last
    longer than Android on average; by some reports by 33%-66% longer for
    Samsung, and even longer for the Android off-brands:

    <https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/average-lifespan-of-smartphone>

    TL;DR: merely another variable required for an objective analysis.

    Anyway, back to the original topic, if people want to pay an arm and a leg (plus huge deductibles) for a warranty that I got for free, all the power
    to them, as it increases Apple's profits tremendously when they do so.
    Oh, you actually know what Apple's net profit margin is for AppleCare?
    Please post what it is, along with substantiating citations (preferably
    from their SEC filings, since it is perjury to be untruthful therein).

    But I don't want to ever hear them claim Apple makes better product just because Apple has ungodly profits - as the reason those profits are high is that Apple marketing tells the Apple customer what to do & they just do it.
    Apple is able to have high margins because of successful marketplace differentiation of their products. Just what that differentiation is
    based on doesn't effectively matter, but because they've been successful
    over repeated purchase cycles, it is clear that their success isn't
    merely marketing hype, but is substantiative for their customers.

    -hh


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 12 19:54:05 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:29:34 -0400, -hh wrote :


    On 8/12/25 13:27, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:05:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

    Anyway, you're correct ...

    As per usual; "Film at 11".

    One problem you have is you feel you're "battling" wits with me, where,
    like most Apple trolls, you take more than normal glee about being right.'

    For me, being correct on facts is a matter of scientific credibility.
    For you, it seems to be more a matter of ego.

    Ditch the ego and you'll be a normal person who can carry on an adult conversation in the Apple newsgroups, as you do show cognitive skills that
    are far and above those shown in the posts of the typical Apple troll.

    Where you're correct is that premium:claim ratios are not deterministic
    when making estimates on whether or not the insurance will be worth it
    simply because there is an unknown of whether or not bad things happen.

    But wait....

    There's a way around that randomness and uncertainty.

    Which is stochastic.

    Again and again, you show critical thought capability, where I do agree
    with you on how insurance companies calculate risk and therefore premiums.

    We individuals don't have the data that insurance companies have amassed.
    So individuals rely on averages.

    Which is how I calculated whether or not the insurance was worth it.

    You assume an average of 2 events needing insurance, one big & one small.
    In the four years, that's one event on average every two years.

    Is it deterministic? Nope.

    Incorrect: you're trying to use a deterministic method in the absence
    of you having the stochastic data to do it correctly.

    Fine. I use averages. I'm OK with that. It's just a phone after all.

    But it becomes strategically predictable.Because at best its a
    first order approach. It isn't sufficient for a
    competitive business who wants to actually stay in business to use.

    Ummm.. OK. Who wouldn't agree with that. Not me.
    But an individual isn't a competitive business.

    Me?
    I assumed 2 repairs in four years in my cost comparison calculations.

    My calculations were not pure randomness; they were informed estimation.
    Numbers you made up because you lack stochastic data to do it correctly.

    Um... sure. Beat that dead horse s'more.
    An individual doesn't have data the insurance companies have amassed.

    What's your point in repeating that when we're making simple assumptions?

    ...Sure, the principles of risk pooling and pricing based on claim rates and >> costs are consistent across insurance types. But the nature of the insured >> product absolutely influences how those principles play out in practice.

    Which are manifest in claim rates & claim costs (one's stochastic data).

    A phone warranty deals with frequent, low-cost claims.

    Interesting claim ... but got substantiating data? Didn't think so.

    A house? Infrequent, high-cost, and often influenced by external
    systemic risks like natural disasters or market shifts.

    Maybe. There's others which you're clearly unaware of.

    A person? Now you're in the realm of health,
    mortality, and behavioral unpredictability.

    Maybe. There's others which you're clearly unaware of.
    So yes, the math behind insurance is universal, but the inputs,
    assumptions, and volatility vary wildly depending on what's being insured.

    Nevertheless, they're all approached the same: stochastically.

    That's not just a detail as it's the difference between modeling something >> as simple as a cracked screen versus modeling an entire human life.

    A device dies; a person dies: is there really a difference?
    Unless you trade that iPhone in after four years of paying for AppleCare. >>>>
    Then you only paid 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 the price of the iPhone since you get >>>> about 1/2 the price back on the original price paid for the iPhone.

    Since that's ignoring warranty claim rates & costs, that's grossly crude >>> & erroneous, which is why you came to invalid conclusions.

    Hmmm... now you're talking like an Apple troll since I took into account
    the warranty claims. I assumed one major and one minor claim in 4 years.Keyword "assumed". Unless the policy is restricted to only two claims,
    you've not been quantitatively honest on its value estimate.

    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone. >>> But the average product costs aren't irrelevant. Since iPhones trend to >>> be more expensive, where did you appropriately & correctly normalize
    this variable out? Because failure to do so is a rookie mistake.

    Now you're talking back like a normal person and less like an Apple troll.

    So did you normalize out this factor, or didn't you?

    I only take what you say to determine if you're an Apple troll.

    Hell, everyone knows I don't even see whom I'm conversing with unless I
    look, because my "newsreader" is a bunch of scripts around telnet & gvim.

    I take each person on the merits of what they claim.
    a. If they defend Apple to the death, no matter what, they're Apple trolls.
    b. If they can think critically about any subject, then they're likely not.

    You?
    You're in between.

    You claim a free phone has magical alien-like additional hidden costs *to
    me* that you claim you know but nobody else on the planet can find them.

    That concept of the aliens did it is something the Apple trolls do.
    The fact you do it, indicates you're not completely normal.

    You're somewhere in between Apple troll-cognition & normal cognition.

    Sure, Android phones cost from free to just as much or more than iPhones.
    iPhones only cost in the high end, so we have to take that into account.

    So did you normalize out this factor, or didn't you?

    My point was there is no comparable iPhone to Android since *every* Android phone in recent years has more functionality than any iPhone ever made.

    There is only one thing that anyone on this newsgroup can mention that an iPhone can do that an Android phone can't do - but there are very many
    useful things an Android phone can do that no iPhone can do.

    While iPhones all lack basic hardware, it's mostly not just the crappy
    Apple hardware that determine the functionality. It's Apple's strategy.

    1. Most functionality comes from the mothership & from developers
    2. Apple severely limits what developers can do with the iPhone
    3. Google can't.

    Note: Goole can, & sometimes does; but Google doesn't is more common.

    Most of the time the easiest way to take that into account is to compare
    similar phones, but since an iPhone will always lack functionality compared >> to Android, the big problem there is no similar phone can ever be found.

    But at least we can compare similarly priced phones.

    That requires modulation based on the respective service plans; did you?

    Huh? Service plans? WHagt service plans? I have T-Mobile. The service is completely independent of the phone. There's nothing connected whatsoever.

    You pay whatever you pay for the phone (and get it from whomever you want).
    And you pay whatever you pay for the service (and you get that from T-Mo).

    Why would the service plan have anything whatsoever to do with the phone?

    Note: I'm well aware you are thinking like an Apple troll so you "think"
    that the service pays for the phone and you're likely thinking that the contract keeps you there but T-Mobile doesn't do contracts and the service
    is independent of the phone.

    And yes, I'm aware that T-Mobile takes into account their TOTAL costs when determining service but I've been on the same service plan for a decade and
    the price has never changed (although the taxes have gone up over time).
    <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for 6 lines + $16 fees

    The overall cost of ownership of an iPhone is always going to be about
    twice that of similarly priced Androids, and the iPhone functionality will >> be about half (which is a known factor but harder to assess the value of).

    Was TCO been normalized by lifespan? Because iPhones are known to last longer than Android on average; by some reports by 33%-66% longer for Samsung, and even longer for the Android off-brands:

    <https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/average-lifespan-of-smartphone>

    TL;DR: merely another variable required for an objective analysis.

    When we did the analysis, all publicly reported on this ng, we also asked
    the entire team to specify the trade-in phone in addition to the purchase phone, so notice I had NO CHOICE in that trade-in phone.

    The team even picked the zip code, and even the T-Mobile store at that zip code, which I called the T-Mobile store myself to confirm costs.

    So that's FOUR phones (one on each platform to trade in & one to buy).

    The iPhone was about double overall taking into account all factors that
    the team asked us to take into account. Even Steve couldn't deny the math.

    Remember, I own iPhones, iPads and Android tablets and Android phones.
    I know how much more almost everything costs when you own Apple stuff.

    Anyway, back to the original topic, if people want to pay an arm and a leg >> (plus huge deductibles) for a warranty that I got for free, all the power
    to them, as it increases Apple's profits tremendously when they do so.
    Oh, you actually know what Apple's net profit margin is for AppleCare?
    Please post what it is, along with substantiating citations (preferably
    from their SEC filings, since it is perjury to be untruthful therein).

    You are desperate to find a fault which is very Apple troll'ish of you.

    I explained in detail why I think it's a bad deal *for the consumer*.
    And I don't need to know what Apple's profits are to make that assessment.

    But I don't want to ever hear them claim Apple makes better product just
    because Apple has ungodly profits - as the reason those profits are high is >> that Apple marketing tells the Apple customer what to do & they just do it.
    Apple is able to have high margins because of successful marketplace differentiation of their products.

    This is true. It's no different than Virginia Slims.
    "You've come a long way baby... to get to where you got to today..."

    A phone is a commodity. They're all the same. Sort of.
    An iPhone can't do half of what an Android phone can do - but for the
    basics like phone calls, texting, web browsing, etc., they're all the same.

    If you took marketing in college (which I did), the whole point of
    marketing of commodities is to somehow differentiate them & price them
    higher. Apple marketing is genius at that.


    Just what that differentiation is
    based on doesn't effectively matter, but because they've been successful over repeated purchase cycles, it is clear that their success isn't
    merely marketing hype, but is substantiative for their customers.

    Unfortunately, this is true. Very true. Apple customers are sheep.

    Your ability to make intelligent statements differentiates you from the
    Apple trolls, but your ability to let go of "Apple is my God" is holding
    you back from being like a normal person.

    A normal person wouldn't say that Aliens are raising the cost of my
    T-Mobile bill like you essentially did. A normal person would either agree
    with the statements that I gave (which are backed up by both Steve and badgolferman by the way) or give a factual statement showing otherwise.

    You - like all Apple trolls - believe there is a hidden cost that I don't
    see but which I'm paying - which is why you're still in Apple troll land.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From sms@scharf.steven@geemail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Aug 13 11:25:51 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/11/2025 7:06 AM, Tom Elam wrote:

    <snip>
    BUT, this time I just took the iPhone over to the local Apple Store, confident that if it was the charging port it could be fixed or even replaced under AppleCare+ terms. It took about 5 minutes to repair. Accumulated lint in the port that the store rep cleaned out. If the
    Apple rep had screwed up the port in the process so be it. The peace of
    mind knowing I would not be buying another phone is worth the monthly premium to me.

    Debris in the Lightning Port is a well known issue, probably the biggest "repair" other than batteries and screens. You can clean it out with a
    can of compressed air, or a toothpick, no need for AppleCare+ for that.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Aug 13 11:46:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-13 11:25, sms wrote:
    On 8/11/2025 7:06 AM, Tom Elam wrote:

    <snip>
    BUT, this time I just took the iPhone over to the local Apple Store,
    confident that if it was the charging port it could be fixed or even
    replaced under AppleCare+ terms. It took about 5 minutes to repair.
    Accumulated lint in the port that the store rep cleaned out. If the
    Apple rep had screwed up the port in the process so be it. The peace
    of mind knowing I would not be buying another phone is worth the
    monthly premium to me.

    Debris in the Lightning Port is a well known issue, probably the biggest "repair" other than batteries and screens. You can clean it out with a
    can of compressed air, or a toothpick, no need for AppleCare+ for that.

    I find G•U•M brand soft picks are great for cleaning out the port:

    <https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/d4ecd427-1965-48ab-b6f5-875bc2fddaaf.2d245a5673d4024b9cd62d35dc3c123f.jpeg>

    Spiky rubber coating on the tip helps to grab onto the lint.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jolly Roger@jollyroger@pobox.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Aug 13 19:07:40 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-13, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2025-08-13 11:25, sms wrote:
    On 8/11/2025 7:06 AM, Tom Elam wrote:

    <snip>
    BUT, this time I just took the iPhone over to the local Apple Store,
    confident that if it was the charging port it could be fixed or even
    replaced under AppleCare+ terms. It took about 5 minutes to repair.
    Accumulated lint in the port that the store rep cleaned out. If the
    Apple rep had screwed up the port in the process so be it. The peace
    of mind knowing I would not be buying another phone is worth the
    monthly premium to me.

    Debris in the Lightning Port is a well known issue, probably the
    biggest "repair" other than batteries and screens. You can clean it
    out with a can of compressed air, or a toothpick, no need for
    AppleCare+ for that.

    I find G•U•M brand soft picks are great for cleaning out the port:

    <https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/d4ecd427-1965-48ab-b6f5-875bc2fddaaf.2d245a5673d4024b9cd62d35dc3c123f.jpeg>

    Spiky rubber coating on the tip helps to grab onto the lint.

    I picked up one of these long ago and use it regularly. It's great:

    <https://www.purplemohawk.biz>
    --
    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Aug 13 12:34:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-13 12:07, Jolly Roger wrote:
    On 2025-08-13, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2025-08-13 11:25, sms wrote:
    On 8/11/2025 7:06 AM, Tom Elam wrote:

    <snip>
    BUT, this time I just took the iPhone over to the local Apple Store,
    confident that if it was the charging port it could be fixed or even
    replaced under AppleCare+ terms. It took about 5 minutes to repair.
    Accumulated lint in the port that the store rep cleaned out. If the
    Apple rep had screwed up the port in the process so be it. The peace
    of mind knowing I would not be buying another phone is worth the
    monthly premium to me.

    Debris in the Lightning Port is a well known issue, probably the
    biggest "repair" other than batteries and screens. You can clean it
    out with a can of compressed air, or a toothpick, no need for
    AppleCare+ for that.

    I find G•U•M brand soft picks are great for cleaning out the port:

    <https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/d4ecd427-1965-48ab-b6f5-875bc2fddaaf.2d245a5673d4024b9cd62d35dc3c123f.jpeg>

    Spiky rubber coating on the tip helps to grab onto the lint.

    I picked up one of these long ago and use it regularly. It's great:

    <https://www.purplemohawk.biz>


    Seems useful..
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Chris@ithinkiam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 14 17:21:14 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
    On 8/11/25 21:40, Marion wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:33:40 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Facts are
    that there's many different ways to calculate insurance rates and what
    you're trying to insinuate has very little bearing.

    There is only one way to calculate true costs, and that's to add them up.

    Which only works in a deterministic world.
    Unfortunately for you, insurance is stochastic.

    I think you mean probabilistic. If it was truly random/stochastic actuaries would not be able to model risk and insurance would be the same for
    everyone.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Aug 14 10:40:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-08-14 10:21, Chris wrote:
    -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
    On 8/11/25 21:40, Marion wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:33:40 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Facts are
    that there's many different ways to calculate insurance rates and what >>>> you're trying to insinuate has very little bearing.

    There is only one way to calculate true costs, and that's to add them up. >>
    Which only works in a deterministic world.
    Unfortunately for you, insurance is stochastic.

    I think you mean probabilistic. If it was truly random/stochastic actuaries would not be able to model risk and insurance would be the same for
    everyone.



    You're setting those two terms as being contradictory.

    "Stochastic" doesn't imply that their isn't recognizable distribution of probabilities.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tom Elam@thomas.e.elam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Aug 17 16:08:36 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 8/11/2025 9:40 PM, Marion wrote:
    On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:33:40 -0400, -hh wrote :


    Facts are
    that there's many different ways to calculate insurance rates and what
    you're trying to insinuate has very little bearing.

    There is only one way to calculate true costs, and that's to add them up.

    Take a look at the thread I referenced where AppleCare pushes up the cost
    of the iPhone to the point that you pay double the original price.

    Unless you trade that iPhone in after four years of paying for AppleCare.

    Then you only paid 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 the price of the iPhone since you get
    about 1/2 the price back on the original price paid for the iPhone.

    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone.

    At $120/year it's 8 years before the premiums = cost. That assumes no
    claims. If the phone breaks and is not repairable you get a new phone.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marion@marion@facts.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Aug 19 11:21:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:08:36 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :


    It's why the most expensive phone to own is always going to be an iPhone.

    At $120/year it's 8 years before the premiums = cost. That assumes no claims. If the phone breaks and is not repairable you get a new phone.

    I welcome that Tom Elam has been transparent on AppleCare+ costs above.

    I would easily agree with his math that, if you have no claims after 8
    years, you've only doubled the price of the iPhone, which means you bought
    it twice for no actual benefit other than peace of mind over those 8 years.

    However, if you lose it or destroy it, you gain, as you would with most insurance where you make as many claims as you need to make to be whole.

    Bear in mind the main reason I ask these adult thought-provoking questions
    is to help other people to learn what Apple's true strategies are.

    IMHO...
    Apple's fundamental goal is to make you pay twice for every iPhone you buy.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2