What a piece of expletive deleted mediocre, dumbed down; proprietary technologjcal arrogance !
Assembled cogniscenti Picked up a Samsung Galaxy SII m/n -191100T amoungst large collection of old laptops (most faulty) and other IT stuff which were being disgarded'; looks like it works fine; charges OK. Just contacted their support after a quick look through the user manual; It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree If I'm ever in the market for one of these sort of phones; application deletion will be high on the feature list! Ah theres nothing like a sense of high minded outrage; to set one up for the day; but not quite as good as coffee, which comes next ! ; regards Rohan McLeod
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 at 10:18 Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Just contacted their support after a quick look through the user manual; It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree
If it is a recent version of Android (IIRC something like 4.x or above), you should be able to disable the pre-installed apps using settings -> Apps -> All -> (select app) -> Disable. There is some Samsung supplied software that this won't work with (e.g. My Magazine on my tablet, the disable button is greyed out). If the version of Android is too old and doesn't support this I would seriously consider installing something like Cyanogenmod on it (if it is a supported device).
Yeah, you pretty much need to put a custom ROM on those things. I have the Galaxy Nexus with the same issues. I haven't put a custom ROM on because I don't actually care enough, and most of the bloatware is pretty innocent. On 25 March 2015 at 10:58, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 at 10:18 Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Just contacted their support after a quick look through the user manual; It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree
If it is a recent version of Android (IIRC something like 4.x or above), you should be able to disable the pre-installed apps using settings -> Apps -> All -> (select app) -> Disable. There is some Samsung supplied software that this won't work with (e.g. My Magazine on my tablet, the disable button is greyed out).
If the version of Android is too old and doesn't support this I would seriously consider installing something like Cyanogenmod on it (if it is a supported device).
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
-- -------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Leeuwenburg http://myownhat.blogspot.com/ "Don't believe everything you think"
Brian May wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 at 10:18 Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au <mailto:rhn@jeack.com.au>> wrote:
Just contacted their support after a quick look through the user manual; It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree
If it is a recent version of Android (IIRC something like 4.x or above), you should be able to disable the pre-installed apps using settings -> Apps -> All -> (select app) -> Disable. There is some Samsung supplied software that this won't work with (e.g. My Magazine on my tablet, the disable button is greyed out).
Regarding: "you should be able to disable the pre-installed apps using settings -> Apps -> All -> (select app) -> Disable." closest gui path I can see to this is: Apps>Settings>Application Manager>All> no sign of (select app) but I notice : >Android System tells me "version 4.1.2-19100TDVLSM"; where as http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones/android/GT-I91... states the android version seems to be "Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) " Not sure what to make of that; since what I know of the previous owner suggests OS upgrade would be unlikely !
If the version of Android is too old and doesn't support this I would seriously consider installing something like Cyanogenmod on it (if it is a supported device).
Thing is, Galaxy SII m/n -191100T seem to be reasonably recent ? and selling new for $100 or so; see http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/221391763176?clk_rvr_id=802746941451&crlp=1_262691&mt_id=641&sdc_id=1427243489z669123z54073b0a30381z&mid=503315&fitem=221391763176&linkin_id=8084735&kw={query}&crdt=0&sortbid=17 so I'.m thinking I'm probably better off flogging it as is; because I expect the Cyanogenmod etc. instal; will probably reduce the sale price somewhat :-) ; The market demographic to which I belong is popularly known as " new technology luddites"; we like to call ourselves "late adopters" and "trailing edge technology enthusiasts " ! The theory being that the "cutting" part of cutting-edge-technology" is the bit you hold in your hand ! Every mobile handset which I have ever owned has outlived the cell-phone network on which it was based; eg analogue, CDMA. Currently my ZTE F165 NextG is still fully functional; and Hellstra has not indicated that NextG is about to be replaced ! ................ do you think they have got the bugs out of theses "horse-less carriage" contraptions yet ? regards Rohan McLeod
On 25/03/15 12:51, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Every mobile handset which I have ever owned has outlived the cell-phone network on which it was based; eg analogue, CDMA. Currently my ZTE F165 NextG is still fully functional; and Hellstra has not indicated that NextG is about to be replaced !
The S2 is almost certainly a better phone than the ZTE in all respects other than battery life, despite being three years old now. Why do you want to remove the apps, anyway? The ZTE looks like it does barely more than voice and sms, so you could just use the S2 and ignore all the apps that you're not interested in.
Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
On 25/03/15 12:51, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Every mobile handset which I have ever owned has outlived the cell-phone network on which it was based; eg analogue, CDMA. Currently my ZTE F165 NextG is still fully functional; and Hellstra has not indicated that NextG is about to be replaced !
The S2 is almost certainly a better phone than the ZTE in all respects other than battery life, despite being three years old now.
Well I can forgive the ZTE not being able to remove apps (which I would if I could) it having no recognizable OS; but I expect more from Android; also as mentioned later, I am a "trailing edge technology enthusiast:" - I seem to become attached and habituated to particular GUI interfaces and a minimum of distraction; eg I much prefer: SeaMonkey-mail to Gmail; and SeaMonkey to Mozilla,Chrome, - Even though I very rarely use the ZTE's rudimentary brousing capabilities; I am not impressed by those of the S2; - most of the software (but not all) on the S2 is just rubbish; in the sense of addressing problems unimportant to me. - for example I have disconnected even the ZTE's SMS capacity, - even my online networking is limited to email (no tweeting, Facebook,...) ..................I would diagnose many Asperger character traits ! hoping this provides explanation; if no justification Rohan McLeod
On recent versions of Android you can disable apps. I only recently discovered it in the app management section (which most users probably don't investigate). Also some of the apps are not listed by name so you may need to do some google searches to find out if it's really an app you want to disable. I think that the GalaxyS2 is stuck on Android 2.3.x and don't know if it supports disabling apps without being rooted. Of course you could install CyanogenMod or something, but with the amount of time required you might as well start by buying a Nexus4 or another more recent phone. -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 with K-9 Mail.
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 at 12:53 Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Regarding: "you should be able to disable the pre-installed apps using settings -> Apps -> All -> (select app) -> Disable." closest gui path I can see to this is: Apps>Settings>Application Manager>All> no sign of (select app)
Best I can think of is that app name isn't what you are expecting it to be. Which could make it hard to find in the list.
but I notice : >Android System tells me "version 4.1.2-19100TDVLSM"; where as http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones/android/GT- I9100LKAXEU
states the android version seems to be "Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) "
Not sure what to make of that; since what I know of the previous owner suggests OS upgrade would be unlikely !
The version the phone gives is the authoritative source, chances are the website hasn't been updated in ages. Also updates typically happen over the air (eventually with Samsung when they decide to actually provide an upgrade) so all the previous owner would have had to do is click "yes" when prompted to do the upgrade.
On 25/03/2015 2:12 PM, Brian May wrote:
The version the phone gives is the authoritative source, chances are the website hasn't been updated in ages. Also updates typically happen over the air (eventually with Samsung when they decide to actually provide an upgrade) so all the previous owner would have had to do is click "yes" when prompted to do the upgrade.
I'm far from impressed at the updates that Samsung does, in fact, the i9300 (S3) has a /bad/ version of 4.3 and that hardware should easily run at least 4.4.2 now (bare minimum). This lack of updates is giving me good reason to stop buying Samsung phones completely. Updates are too slow or non-existent. They want you to junk the old phone and buy a new one. Supporting the old phone, that sold in huge numbers, should be a far higher priority so that customer's are not disapointed and therefore wanting to try another supplier to hopefully get a better experience. A.
The phones I support include 2*GalaxyS3. They still work well, run all the latest apps, and everything seems fine. One of those phones has marginal hardware, the camera sometimes doesn't work and it takes ages to charge. But as far as software support goes it seems ok. One of the phones ran slowly after an upgrade once but a reset to factory defaults fixed that, it's not an ideal situation but what most users expect nowadays. Not bad for 3yo phones. I also still support a GalaxyS. That one is really old and only has Android 2.3.x. But it's still quite usable. The only problem I have with the GalaxyS is that all the other ones I supported have died, a higher failure rate than any other phone I've used. I recently purchased my fourth Samsung Android phone, a Note 3. I plan to keep it until it dies or Samsung releases a Note with more than 3G of RAM. -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 with K-9 Mail.
On 25/03/2015 3:37 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
The phones I support include 2*GalaxyS3. They still work well, run all the latest apps, and everything seems fine. One of those phones has marginal hardware, the camera sometimes doesn't work and it takes ages to charge. But as far as software support goes it seems ok. One of the phones ran slowly after an upgrade once but a reset to factory defaults fixed that, it's not an ideal situation but what most users expect nowadays. Not bad for 3yo phones.
This seems to be /one/ good report telling things as they are: http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2014/06/01/samsung-galaxy-s3-gt-i9300-stable-a... I see very slow response, particularly when Google Play is updating apps. I sometimes have to restart my S3. It most definitely doesn't perform as well as it should. When everything is working okay, it is snappy enough, but it far too often isn't responsive. I've not has a phone that needed as many reboots due to the device being too unresponsive running a buggy Android version. I have set it up with encryption, but it shouldn't make that much difference to performance and usability. Bluebox Security Scanner app [1] shows that the current stock version of Android that Samsung /cares/ to provide is vulnerable to the FakeID [2] bug and also (outside that app from other knowledge) the stock web browser is also subject to a very security issue as well [3]. Now, I don't use the stock browser, so that helps me somewhat. And I only download apps from the Play store, so the FakeID bug is /less/ likely to cause an issue, but it sure can still, even using official app sources! Both of these should be fixed by Samsung, but they don't care. So, I conclude that this simply is not good enough by Samsung. It's not as if they only sold a few thousand of these phones, they are everywhere in huge numbers. The hardware can easily take the later version of Android which has both of these issues fully addressed. Samsung makes up the vast majority of Android users and so many are stuck on version 4.3 with these problems. Therefore, Samsung brings down Android's reputation a great deal. Other manufactures seem to care more about updating the software so that their customers have safer devices. My Galaxy S was retired long ago. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bluebox.labs.onerootscanne... [2] https://bluebox.com/technical/android-fake-id-vulnerability/ [3] http://www.securityweek.com/google-patches-second-same-origin-policy-bypass-... A.
On 25/03/2015 6:19 PM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2014/06/01/samsung-galaxy-s3-gt-i9300-stable-a...
Oh and one other thing that *really* pisses me off with the S3 is that when I have bluetooth on in the car. The phone can be unlocked, which I allow 30 minutes due to the long encryption pass phrase that I use, if a call comes in and is then answered via bluetooth, then when I hang up (it could be a very short call), then the device fully locks again ignoring the state it was in just prior to the call. The same problem occurs even if I make a call and the other party doesn't answer, then I hang up the call. A.
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:19:06 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I see very slow response, particularly when Google Play is updating apps. I sometimes have to restart my S3. It most definitely doesn't perform as well as it should.
The internal flash storage on those phones is quite slow. When big writes happen (such as the copying of large files for app installation/upgrade) everything goes slow. It's just a limit of the affordable technology 2 years ago.
When everything is working okay, it is snappy enough, but it far too often isn't responsive. I've not has a phone that needed as many reboots due to the device being too unresponsive running a buggy Android version. I have set it up with encryption, but it shouldn't make that much difference to performance and usability.
I haven't noticed any Android version performing consistently well. But I haven't done much with Android 5.0, so maybe the latest version fixed the ongoing problems with response times that affected all previous versions (but probably not).
Bluebox Security Scanner app [1] shows that the current stock version of Android that Samsung /cares/ to provide is vulnerable to the FakeID [2] bug and also (outside that app from other knowledge) the stock web browser is also subject to a very security issue as well [3].
Now, I don't use the stock browser, so that helps me somewhat. And I only download apps from the Play store, so the FakeID bug is /less/ likely to cause an issue, but it sure can still, even using official app sources!
Andoid is badly designed in this regard. They should have made it more like Debian and allow upgrades of apps independent of the core OS.
Samsung makes up the vast majority of Android users and so many are stuck on version 4.3 with these problems. Therefore, Samsung brings down Android's reputation a great deal. Other manufactures seem to care more about updating the software so that their customers have safer devices.
As most users don't care about such things I don't think that Samsung is bringing down Android's reputation.
My Galaxy S was retired long ago.
Maybe you should offer it for sale at a future LUV meeting, you would probably find a buyer. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 26/03/2015 3:13 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:19:06 AM Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Samsung makes up the vast majority of Android users and so many are stuck on version 4.3 with these problems. Therefore, Samsung brings down Android's reputation a great deal. Other manufactures seem to care more about updating the software so that their customers have safer devices.
As most users don't care about such things I don't think that Samsung is bringing down Android's reputation.
People don't care because ... they don't know better! Most ordinary people don't know about all the problems with openssl in the last 12 or so months. Most people don't know about all the password compromises the world has seen. It's a real pity that non-tech people will never understand the extent of some problems that are real; but that is no excuse for Samsung not getting us reasonable update to fix such problems. A.
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
People don't care because ... they don't know better!
True.
Most ordinary people don't know about all the problems with openssl in the last 12 or so months. Most people don't know about all the password compromises the world has seen.
It's a real pity that non-tech people will never understand the extent of some problems that are real; but that is no excuse for Samsung not getting us reasonable update to fix such problems.
People shouldn't need to understand the extent of the problems. The problem here is that unrestricted capitalism is clearly and directly against the best interests of citizens. Companies should be compelled to make products work well for a reasonable period of time. There are statutory warranties for hardware, so if you buy a Samsung phone and it stops working within a year they have to replace it. I think that we also need statutory warranties for software. If you buy a new commodity item and it needs an SSL update within 5 years then I think that the supplier should be compelled to provide it. I think that a good way of implementing that would be to have a higher tax rate for products that have no guarantee of security fixes (IE imports of small quantities). If the tax difference was $50 per item and Samsung was expecting to ship 1M items to Australia then it would be good business to offer such support. As part of their support guarantee (to get the tax benefit) they could provide a full copy of the source code so that if they became unable to fulfill their commitment to support then other people could do it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 27/03/2015 5:34 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>
It's a real pity that non-tech people will never understand the extent of some problems that are real; but that is no excuse for Samsung not getting us reasonable update to fix such problems.
People shouldn't need to understand the extent of the problems.
The problem here is that unrestricted capitalism is clearly and directly against the best interests of citizens. Companies should be compelled to make products work well for a reasonable period of time. There are statutory warranties for hardware, so if you buy a Samsung phone and it stops working within a year they have to replace it.
The consumer law in Australia should cover it just the way it is, but try to enforce and no-one will sell anything here. Those statutory warranties are bare minimum, they don't cover what is actually required by law here in AU.
I think that we also need statutory warranties for software. If you buy a new commodity item and it needs an SSL update within 5 years then I think that the supplier should be compelled to provide it. I think that a good way of implementing that would be to have a higher tax rate for products that have no guarantee of security fixes (IE imports of small quantities). If the tax difference was $50 per item and Samsung was expecting to ship 1M items to Australia then it would be good business to offer such support.
They absolutely should be doing updates on at least the S3, if not also the S2 and them not doing so may well be one of the reasons that the S5 didn't sell anywhere near as well as expected! A.
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
The problem here is that unrestricted capitalism is clearly and directly against the best interests of citizens. Companies should be compelled to make products work well for a reasonable period of time. There are statutory warranties for hardware, so if you buy a Samsung phone and it stops working within a year they have to replace it.
A strong regulatory incentive to sell durable products benefits the consumer and the natural environment (the latter by reducing waste and conserving resources). Obviously, durability runs counter to the upgrade path that sells more products. Of course, consumers bear part of the responsibility - if they demonstrated a strong, collective preference for more reliable and long-lasting hardware and software, this would influence the demand side of the market. It's also notable that consumers generally don't have access to comparative reliability data, so it's hard to make the right choices.
Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree
You could just replace the entire firmware and upgrade it in the process. Find out whether Cyanogenmod, for example, runs on the device. If it does, obtain and follow the installation instructions. Of course, there's a risk involved, but since you didn't spend much (any?) money on the hardware in the first place, you might think it's a risk worth taking.
Jason White wrote:
Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree You could just replace the entire firmware and upgrade it in the process.
Find out whether Cyanogenmod, for example, runs on the device. If it does, obtain and follow the installation instructions. Of course, there's a risk involved, but since you didn't spend much (any?) money on the hardware in the first place, you might think it's a risk worth taking. Thanks for reply Jason; see earlier reply to Brian; I'm just playing with it as indicated; if something turns up which has no resale value; I may well take that advice; I assume a Cyanogenmod instal, would give full root privileges and CLI ?
regards Rohan McLeod
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:17:10 PM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Picked up a Samsung Galaxy SII m/n -191100T amoungst large collection of old laptops (most faulty) and other IT stuff which were being disgarded'; looks like it works fine; charges OK.
It's an OK phone, but not particularly good. It's got the same screen resolution as the Galaxy S, the same storage (in most cases), and the only real benefit is extra RAM.
Just contacted their support after a quick look through the user manual; It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree
If I'm ever in the market for one of these sort of phones; application deletion will be high on the feature list!
Ah theres nothing like a sense of high minded outrage; to set one up for the day; but not quite as good as coffee, which comes next ! ;
The preloaded applications are installed on a separate partition in the phone storage, it IS possible to delete them if you root the phone, but that just makes space on a partition you can't use for anything else - unless you copy downloaded apps to that partition (which is another unsupported operation that requires root access). TitaniumBackup can do these things if you have root, but I don't know if it works with the old version of Android on the Galaxy S2. Many of the preloaded applications will have updates available, if you update them then the new version will be stored on the partition that has all the other apps. That partition is probably going to run out of storage space so this is a bad thing. But if you have them without the upgrades they will be at the top of the list in the Play Store app and generally annoy you. Some of the preloaded apps will run in the background and use RAM even if you never use them. If you can't disable them then that's a major PITA even though the S2 has 1G of RAM which is a decent amount for the tasks that you might want to use on such an old phone. One final thing to consider is that a phone of that age makes a nice little 3G- Wifi AP with built-in diagnostics. I always like to have such a phone on hand for the next time one of my clients cancels their ADSL phone line (no-one was using it for calls). -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:17:10 PM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Picked up a Samsung Galaxy SII m/n -191100T amoungst large collection of old laptops (most faulty) and other IT stuff which were being disgarded'; looks like it works fine; charges OK. It's an OK phone, but not particularly good. It's got the same screen resolution as the Galaxy S, the same storage (in most cases), and the only real benefit is extra RAM.
Just contacted their support after a quick look through the user manual; It's authoritive one can't delete the supplied applications ! So it gets flogged on Gumtree
If I'm ever in the market for one of these sort of phones; application deletion will be high on the feature list!
Ah theres nothing like a sense of high minded outrage; to set one up for the day; but not quite as good as coffee, which comes next ! ; The preloaded applications are installed on a separate partition in the phone storage, it IS possible to delete them if you root the phone, but that just makes space on a partition you can't use for anything else - unless you copy downloaded apps to that partition (which is another unsupported operation that requires root access). TitaniumBackup can do these things if you have root, but I don't know if it works with the old version of Android on the Galaxy S2.
Not clear whether you are suggesting gaining root via a Cyanogenmod etc instal or somehow via the existing Android; but same problem with either ie retail value will be small afterwards; maybe I should keep an eye out for a phone which either provides, 1/ 'off-the-shelf' application deletion' 2/ something which comes with root capability 3/ something which is so cheap that installing Cyanogenmod etc won't matter when the ZTE F165 dies. Anyway it's all a bit academic the ZTE phone works fine and for remote web access; (eg.an off track hut between Daylesford and Castlemaine with no power) I have a 12V 40AH car battery in a box with a built in inverter.(non-sinusoidal) and a USB mobile router ZTE Elite, which just works on the single USB 1.00 port; providing I use a powered hub.(low signal strength ?) I have put a 240 VAC Dick Smith power conditioner on the output of the inverter, after it seemed to take out the PS of the laptop (Compaq Armada e500) The theory being that it was the corner spikes which were the problem ......................so far so good thanks for the suggestions Russell, regards Roha McLeod
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:35:24 AM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Not clear whether you are suggesting gaining root via a Cyanogenmod etc instal or somehow via the existing Android; but same problem with either ie retail value will be small afterwards;
If you root the existing install then you can remove the root access afterwards, or you could just sell it without telling the buyer as it makes no changes to the UI.
maybe I should keep an eye out for a phone which either provides, 1/ 'off-the-shelf' application deletion' 2/ something which comes with root capability 3/ something which is so cheap that installing Cyanogenmod etc won't matter when the ZTE F165 dies.
A Nexus 4 meets that reasonably well. Kogan was selling them for $170 last year. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:35:24 AM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Not clear whether you are suggesting gaining root via a Cyanogenmod etc instal or somehow via the existing Android; but same problem with either ie retail value will be small afterwards; If you root the existing install then you can remove the root access afterwards, or you could just sell it without telling the buyer as it makes no changes to the UI.
Russell that is an excellent suggestion; I don't care if I leave the buyer with root access (yes I know very irresponsible); just as long as the UI and functionality ; is the same to all outward appearance !
maybe I should keep an eye out for a phone which either provides, 1/ 'off-the-shelf' application deletion' 2/ something which comes with root capability 3/ something which is so cheap that installing Cyanogenmod etc won't matter when the ZTE F165 dies. A Nexus 4 meets that reasonably well. Kogan was selling them for $170 last year.
Let's see say another 5 years till the ZTE F165 konks out; and 20%/ year compound depreciation on the Nexus 4 => $Nexus 4 (2020) = $170 x .8^ 5 = $ 55; yep that's do-able to :-$ thanks Rohan McLeod
The flash memory in phones only lasts 5 years of use, so the value of any smart phone value after 5 years is effectively $0, unless you're a gun with a soldering iron. On 26 March 2015 at 16:26, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:35:24 AM Rohan McLeod wrote:
Not clear whether you are suggesting gaining root via a Cyanogenmod etc instal or somehow via the existing Android; but same problem with either ie retail value will be small afterwards;
If you root the existing install then you can remove the root access afterwards, or you could just sell it without telling the buyer as it makes no changes to the UI.
Russell that is an excellent suggestion; I don't care if I leave the buyer with root access (yes I know very irresponsible); just as long as the UI and functionality ; is the same to all outward appearance !
maybe I should keep an eye out for a phone which either provides,
1/ 'off-the-shelf' application deletion' 2/ something which comes with root capability 3/ something which is so cheap that installing Cyanogenmod etc won't matter when the ZTE F165 dies.
A Nexus 4 meets that reasonably well. Kogan was selling them for $170 last year.
Let's see say another 5 years till the ZTE F165 konks out; and 20%/ year compound depreciation on the Nexus 4 => $Nexus 4 (2020) = $170 x .8^ 5 = $ 55; yep that's do-able to :-$
thanks Rohan McLeod
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
thelionroars wrote:
The flash memory in phones only lasts 5 years of use, so the value of any smart phone value after 5 years is effectively $0, unless you're a gun with a soldering iron.
I have on occassion "fired up the iron'; but am also aware that 20ms too much heat and the tracks lift ! Can also report that the ZTE F165 NextG has operated faultlessly since: 28 th Jan 2008 ;when Telstra made it clear that CDMA was absolutely, unconditionally, irrefutably and undeniably going to shutdown tomorrow; and the sky would fall in if I hadn't acquired a new phone.! Of course I was somewhat blaise by this time as they had been promising this; for the previous 6 months by this stage and nothing had happened !. So what behavior should I be seeing if the flash memory on the ZTE F165; has been dying for the last two years ? regards Rohan McLeod
Smartphone, not phone. It's a limitation of flash storage and the amount of writes you can do. On 26 March 2015 at 18:59, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
thelionroars wrote:
The flash memory in phones only lasts 5 years of use, so the value of any smart phone value after 5 years is effectively $0, unless you're a gun with a soldering iron.
I have on occassion "fired up the iron'; but am also aware that 20ms too much heat and the tracks lift !
Can also report that the ZTE F165 NextG has operated faultlessly since: 28 th Jan 2008 ;when Telstra made it clear that CDMA was absolutely, unconditionally, irrefutably and undeniably going to shutdown tomorrow; and the sky would fall in if I hadn't acquired a new phone.! Of course I was somewhat blaise by this time as they had been promising this; for the previous 6 months by this stage and nothing had happened !.
So what behavior should I be seeing if the flash memory on the ZTE F165; has been dying for the last two years ?
regards Rohan McLeod
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
If you root the existing install then you can remove the root access afterwards, or you could just sell it without telling the buyer as it makes no changes to the UI.
Russell that is an excellent suggestion; I don't care if I leave the buyer with root access (yes I know very irresponsible); just as long as the UI and functionality ; is the same to all outward appearance !
When a phone has "root access" that typically means two things. Firstly some apps just happen to have more access (EG programs like TitaniumBackup have access to do what you expect), that generally has no potential down-side and a novice user won't notice anything unusual (nothing unusual about a backup program being able to make a backup). The second thing is that you might have an icon on the desktop to start a root shell (in the case of a default CyanogenMod install when I tried CyanogenMod), that has an obvious risk. But you can easily remove that icon from the desktop and a novice won't notice to put it back.
Let's see say another 5 years till the ZTE F165 konks out; and 20%/ year compound depreciation on the Nexus 4 => $Nexus 4 (2020) = $170 x .8^ 5 = $ 55; yep that's do-able to :-$
You will probably be able to buy a decent new Android phone for $55 by then. ;) On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, thelionroars <thelionroars1337@gmail.com> wrote:
The flash memory in phones only lasts 5 years of use, so the value of any smart phone value after 5 years is effectively $0, unless you're a gun with a soldering iron.
Citation needed. On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
So what behavior should I be seeing if the flash memory on the ZTE F165; has been dying for the last two years ?
You might see data corruption, system hangs (filesystem remounted read-only but with no way to inform you), or application crashes. On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, thelionroars <thelionroars1337@gmail.com> wrote:
Smartphone, not phone. It's a limitation of flash storage and the amount of writes you can do.
All mobile phones have had flash storage. The usage patterns of phones vary a lot and therefore if there is any fixed limit to the number of writes (which I really doubt - more of a probability of data loss) the lifetime of a phone that it corresponds to would vary a lot. For example the Xperia X10i phones that my wife and I used to use are now used by my parents. Those phones survived more than 2 years of fairly intensive usage without any problem. If they were designed to survive 5 years of such use then they would probably be good for more than 10 years of the use that my parents do. If however they were expected to die after 5 years of regular use then the one I used would have died before I finished with it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 27/03/2015 5:28 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Let's see say another 5 years till the ZTE F165 konks out; and 20%/ year compound depreciation on the Nexus 4 => $Nexus 4 (2020) = $170 x .8^ 5 = $ 55; yep that's do-able to :-$
You will probably be able to buy a decent new Android phone for $55 by then. ;)
You've been able to buy new Android phones that cheap for a long time now, but they aren't much good. Screens too small, performance too poor and perhaps also, the wrong radios to get any kind of data speed, but if you are buying such a cheap phone, you can hardly complain about what you get. A.
participants (8)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Brian May -
Jason White -
Paul Dwerryhouse -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tennessee Leeuwenburg -
thelionroars