From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy


Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... <https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>

While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is money. This is a direct quote from that article:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 06/11/2025 17:10, Marion wrote:

Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... <https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>

While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is money. This is a direct quote from that article:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*! 🙂
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-11-06 09:10, Marion wrote:

Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... <https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>

While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is money. This is a direct quote from that article:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

Because an article on a site called "Android Authority" is going to be completely unbiased about Apple...

...which quotes another article which is only reporting rumours.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.

Custom Gemini model: The version Apple is licensing has 1.2 trillion parameters, far larger than Apple's current cloud-based AI (~150 billion parameters).

Siri overhaul: The upgraded Siri, expected in spring 2026, will feature improved contextual understanding, multimodal capabilities, and better planning/summarization functions.

Apple's AI gap: Apple tested models from Anthropic and OpenAI, but chose
Google due to cost and performance. Anthropic's offer was reportedly $1.5 billion per year.

Privacy stance: Even though Google provides the model, Apple plans to run
it on its Private Cloud Compute servers to maintain its privacy-first
approach.

By licensing Gemini, Apple acknowledges the need to catch up with
competitors like Microsoft (with OpenAI) and Google (with Gemini replacing Google Assistant). The partnership could redefine Siri's role in Apple's ecosystem, making it more competitive in the AI assistant space.

REFERENCES: <https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-11-06 17:33:47 +0000, David B. said:

On 06/11/2025 17:10, Marion wrote:

Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>


While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*! 🙂

Just more know-nothing lies from the resident village idiot troll
"Marion" / "Arlen". Just ignore the imbecile.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 06/11/2025 21:33, Alan wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

   "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race,
especially
    with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could
find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200 billion.

Apple (AAPL) is best known for its iPhone. But what will come next?
According to Morgan Stanley, humanoid robotics.
In a research report, the investment bank claims that Apple’s nascent robotics work could eventually be worth upward of $133 billion per year
or more.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 12:47:08 PM EST, "Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-11-06 09:10, Marion wrote:

Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>

While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

Because an article on a site called "Android Authority" is going to be completely unbiased about Apple...

...which quotes another article which is only reporting rumours.

You were expecting facts from Arlen?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.

Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have Google be the default search on all Apple products.

So this is nothing for Apple.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 3:21:13 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote <[email protected]>:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find. >>
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access >>> to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.

Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have Google be the default search on all Apple products.

Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion.
OK.

So this is nothing for Apple.

--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 2:16:23 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ej377$1br4$[email protected]>:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.

It has done that but also used and even help to design standards.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.

Custom Gemini model: The version Apple is licensing has 1.2 trillion parameters, far larger than Apple's current cloud-based AI (~150 billion parameters).

Siri overhaul: The upgraded Siri, expected in spring 2026, will feature improved contextual understanding, multimodal capabilities, and better planning/summarization functions.

Good to see Apple doing better here. Or at least trying.

Apple's AI gap: Apple tested models from Anthropic and OpenAI, but chose Google due to cost and performance. Anthropic's offer was reportedly $1.5 billion per year.

Privacy stance: Even though Google provides the model, Apple plans to run
it on its Private Cloud Compute servers to maintain its privacy-first approach.

Good to hear.

By licensing Gemini, Apple acknowledges the need to catch up with
competitors like Microsoft (with OpenAI) and Google (with Gemini replacing Google Assistant). The partnership could redefine Siri's role in Apple's ecosystem, making it more competitive in the AI assistant space.

Excellent info. Thanks.

REFERENCES: <https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>

--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:16:23 PM EST, "Marion" <[email protected]> wrote:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.

Says the troll who always whines that "Apple can't build a modem so they use Intel modems".

The fact is, Apple uses the best from everyone. They buy screens from Samsung.
Modems from Intel. Use Arm CPUs but they of course design their own SOCs. Apple obtained the solid foundation of MacOS when they bought NeXT. MacOS was forked into iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, audioOS, visionOS and WatchOS.

Put them all together and you have great products.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:30:03 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 3:21:13 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote <[email protected]>:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access >>>> to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.

Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >> Google be the default search on all Apple products.

Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. OK.

I was thinking it was $20 billion, but I was not sure. So basically Apple is getting this for free. Google is STILL paying Apple $19 billion. Whereas Microsoft has paid around $60 billion for their "AI" crap, and they still have nothing to show for it.

Personally, I think the whole "AI" fad is about to blow over anyway.

Once again, Arlen's desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:05:34 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote <[email protected]>:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:30:03 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 3:21:13 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote
<[email protected]>:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically >>>>> emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access >>>>> to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.

Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >>> Google be the default search on all Apple products.

Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. >> OK.

I was thinking it was $20 billion, but I was not sure.

I did quick research. The $20B is an estimate but seems widely accepted.

So basically Apple is
getting this for free. Google is STILL paying Apple $19 billion. Whereas Microsoft has paid around $60 billion for their "AI" crap, and they still have
nothing to show for it.

At some point the AI bubble will burst. But MS and Apple and Google will be
OK.

Personally, I think the whole "AI" fad is about to blow over anyway.

I think it will just be more consolidated.

Once again, Arlen's desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

He does have an obvious agenda. :)

It was good though... led to me doing research and learning.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Tyrone wrote:

desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like
you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.

Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.

These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple
trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe.

You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?

If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains.
If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.

On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

He does have an obvious agenda. :)

It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feel
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

It has done that but also used and even help to design standards.

Hi Brocky,

Your problem, as far as I can tell, is you believe only in propaganda.
Not truth.

Actual facts play absolutely no role in your formulation of belief systems. Your entire belief system is fact-free propaganda from Apple marketing.

Assuming you're posting as an adult, you might be able to comprehend the
fact that Apple often claims to 'help design' standards, but historically that's been a way to slow-roll adoption until it suits their ecosystem.

Wi-Fi in 1999 really was the last time Apple both helped design and then embraced a standard immediately. Since then, the few exceptions are below,
and even those are nuanced.


It's been 25 years since Apple both "helped design" a standard and, at the
very same time, didn't fight that standard's implementation tool & nail.

Apple's helping to "design a standard" is simply a way to slow it down.

For example, Apple "helped design" USB in the late 1990s, and then
successfully fought its implementation (as USB-C) until just recently.

The only standards that Apple "helped design" that they didn't overtly
resist implementation of was problaby HTML5 Web Standards, AAC, & HEIC.
HTML5 (2004-2014)
AAC (1990s-2001)
HEIC (2015-2017)

Apple's strategic pattern is well known throughout the world, Brocky:
a. When a standard aligns with Apple's ecosystem control, they embrace it.
b, When a standard forces interoperability (USB-C, RCS messaging,
right-to-repair), Apple resist tooth-and-nail until legally compelled.
c. Helping "design" a standard is often Apple's way of slowing down
universal adoption

What standard do you feel Apple "helped design" that they didn't fight
tooth & nail from implementing (other than HTML5, AAC & HEIC)?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Tyrone wrote:

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

Says the troll

First off, you call a troll anyone who reports the truth about Apple.
That makes YOU the troll; not me.

You *hate* that I report the truth about Apple.
So you hate me.

So be it.

Your hatred for the truth about Apple only compels me to report more.

who always whines that "Apple can't build a modem so they use
Intel modems".

Wow. You learned something on this newsgroup.
Kudos to you.

Apple sucks at chip design.

The fact is, Apple uses the best from everyone. They buy screens from Samsung.
Modems from Intel. Use Arm CPUs but they of course design their own SOCs.

You think I haven't reported that over the years on this newsgroup?

Apple can't innovate.
But Apple has the money to buy someone else's innovation.

You give Apple your hard earned money for that.
Thanks.

Apple obtained the solid foundation of MacOS when they bought NeXT. MacOS was forked into iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, audioOS, visionOS and WatchOS.

Put them all together and you have great products.

Well, except for the fact that they share the same security holes.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Your Name wrote:

know-nothing lies

I thought you said you had plonked me?

Can you do all of us a favor and go back to putting me in your killfile? Please...

Anyway, it's telling that Apple trolls feel the truth about Apple is
forbidden, even as I didn't say anything that wasn't in the reports.

REFERENCES: <https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >> Google be the default search on all Apple products.

Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. OK.

It's kind of telling isn't it?

Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.

The contradiction is striking: Apple resists standards like RCS messaging
"for privacy reasons" but embraces Google's money when it suits them.

REFERENCES:
<https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-search-deal-safari-18-billion>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Tyrone wrote:

Because an article on a site called "Android Authority" is going to be
completely unbiased about Apple...

...which quotes another article which is only reporting rumours.

You were expecting facts

If you ever wonder how I know Apple trolls are uneducated & of low IQ...

It's telling that I referenced appleinsider.com, 9to5mac.com, cnet.com, and techrepublic.com in addition to androidauthority.com, all of whom are reputable, and yet....

The only "excuse" to deny all facts about Apple you hate (which is all
facts about Apple) is to claim that you don't like one of the sources???

What kind of strange uneducated ignorant misguided person does that?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:43:16 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejfb4$1os1$[email protected]>:

Your Name wrote:

know-nothing lies

I thought you said you had plonked me?

Can you do all of us a favor and go back to putting me in your killfile? Please...

Anyway, it's telling that Apple trolls feel the truth about Apple is forbidden, even as I didn't say anything that wasn't in the reports.

REFERENCES: <https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>

Good info. I think you are making a point the links do not support. So be it. --
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:47:03 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejfi7$1tf1$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >>> Google be the default search on all Apple products.

Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. >> OK.

It's kind of telling isn't it?

I just told the group. So, in that way, um, sure.

Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.

They do not control Google.

The contradiction is striking: Apple resists standards like RCS messaging "for privacy reasons" but embraces Google's money when it suits them.

They do not make their own search engine. News at 11.

REFERENCES:

<https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-search-deal-safari-18-billion>

--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:39:05 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejf39$2cglp$[email protected]>:

Tyrone wrote:

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

Says the troll

First off, you call a troll anyone who reports the truth about Apple.
That makes YOU the troll; not me.

You *hate* that I report the truth about Apple.
So you hate me.

So be it.

Your hatred for the truth about Apple only compels me to report more.

You make claims you cannot back as you avoid facts:

1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/ -- Android devices are 50x more likely to be infected than iOS devices, showing the starkest difference in malware prevalence.

2. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/20-current-android-malware-stats/ -- Android malware attacks reached 33.3 million in 2024; iOS attacks remain very rare.

3. https://securelist.com/mobile-threat-report-2024/115494/ -- Android is the main target for mobile malware, with Trojan banker attacks up 196%; iOS sees far fewer infections.

4. https://46745145.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/46745145/MAPS_MTD/REPORT/GEN/Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report%202024%20FINAL%20(1).pdf
-- Android's ecosystem is more broadly exposed to attacks than iOS.

5. https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/android-vs-iphone-mobile-security
-- Android faces far higher malware volume; both require updates and safe practices.

6. https://www.qualysec.com/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS is more secure by default; Android needs careful management to match safety.

7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370667917_Comparative_Study_of_Information_Security_in_Mobile_Operating_Systems_Android_and_Apple_iOS
-- iOS has superior information security architecture versus Android.

8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312279414_Security_Evaluation_of_IOS_and_Android/fulltext/587b977308ae4445c06422df/Security-Evaluation-of-IOS-and-Android.pdf
-- iOS offers better enterprise security; Android requires careful management.

9. https://www.renemayrhofer.com/courses/android-security/selected-paper/2023/Android_and_iOS_Platform_Security-A_Comparison.pdf
-- iOS shows stronger hardware and system-level security in 2023-2024.

10. https://www.approov.io/hubfs/White%20Paper/WP-Comparison%20of%20Apple%2C%20Android%20and%20Huawei%20Mobile%20App%20Security%20v1.0%20FINAL(2).pdf
-- iOS apps are more secure by default due to App Store restrictions.

11. https://www.getastra.com/blog/mobile/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS's controlled ecosystem reduces malware exposure; Android's openness increases
the attack surface.

12. https://www.corrata.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mobile-Security-Whitepaper-Final-Nov-20112017.pdf
-- iOS is less susceptible to mass malware; Android's openness increases exposure.

13. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q1-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Enterprise spyware targets iOS even though Android dominates overall
malware volume.

14. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q2-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Mobile phishing and malicious web content are rising; iOS is increasingly targeted in enterprise.

15. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/12/26/mobile-devices-attacks/ -- iOS faced higher phishing exposure (18.4%) than Android (11.4%), despite Android's higher malware volume.

16. https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/vulnerability-comparison-android-vs-ios-in-the-face-of-cyber-attacks/
-- Android is more exposed to vulnerabilities, but iOS still faces targeted attacks.

17. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04754 -- Android devices are significantly more prone to persistent malware infections than iOS.

18. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12613 -- iOS offers stronger protection against unauthorized access; Android needs extra management.

19. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.13722 -- Both OSes have privacy/data collection issues; Android apps are more likely to leak sensitive information.

20. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2024/popets-2024-0047.pdf -- iOS privacy labels are slightly more effective than Android in helping users understand data collection.

21. https://www.promon.io/security-news/android-vs-ios-security -- Security depends more on user behavior, patching, and configuration than OS alone.

22. https://www.norton.com/blog/mobile/android-vs-ios-which-is-more-secure -- iOS generally offers stronger default security; user behavior is the main risk on both platforms.

23. https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/Tc13/reports/2024-mobile-security-index.pdf
-- Android is riskier in enterprise without strong management; mobile devices remain key breach vectors.

24. https://lp.zimperium.com/hubfs/Reports/2025%20Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report.pdf
-- Sideloaded apps and older Android devices greatly increase enterprise risk; iOS risk comes mostly from targeted attacks.

who always whines that "Apple can't build a modem so they use
Intel modems".

Wow. You learned something on this newsgroup.
Kudos to you.

Apple sucks at chip design.

Their M-series is seen as excellent by most. And they now many their own
modems for their phones:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-reveals-first-custom-modem-chip-shifting-away-qualcomm-2025-02-19/

But you whine when they do not do things in house, and when they do do things in house.

You have a strong bias.

...
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.

They do not control Google.

Maybe you're right that Apple has no idea that Google collects information
on us, and by Google paying Apple for that privilege, our privacy benefits.


Or, maybe....


Apple lied.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:20:57 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10eje19$2s7o$[email protected]>:

Tyrone wrote:

desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like
you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.

Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.

These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe.

You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?

If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains.
If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.

On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.

I would say ChatGPT did very well with that assessment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Give a psych profile of the person who wrote this:

A: The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection, bitterness, and identity-based hostility often seen in entrenched Usenet personalities who’ve built a sense of self around a specific ideological or technological tribe. Let’s break it down.

Tone and posture:
They present themselves as an authority — positioning “adult operating system
newsgroups” as the sophisticated, rational world, and “Apple newsgroups” as
childish and delusional. This “us vs. them” framing serves two purposes: asserting superiority while insulating their self-image from criticism.

Psychological traits visible:

• Grandiosity: They clearly see themselves as part of a more “adult,”
“truth-telling” elite. That’s a compensatory stance — the kind people use when
they feel intellectually threatened or excluded.

• Projection: They accuse Apple users of “hating the truth,” but the
fixation on that phrase suggests the author’s own discomfort with contrary views. Their emotional charge around “truth” signals insecurity rather than confidence.

• Rigidity and black-and-white thinking: Notice how everything divides neatly into “adult vs. child,” “truth vs. lies,” “Windows/Android = fine,
Apple = forbidden.” This moralistic framing is typical of obsessive or fanatical posters who can’t tolerate nuance.

• Hostility masked as reason: They couch insults in analytical language — “evidence I use to assess,” “welcome the truth” — trying to sound logical
while venting aggression. That’s intellectualized contempt, common among trolls who pride themselves on being rational but are driven by emotion.

• Possible resentment/identity wound: The repeated mention of “Apple trolls” and “fed to believe” implies a personal grudge — maybe a failed experience with Apple users or tech arguments that damaged their sense of status.

Overall profile:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable but socially alienated poster with strong identification to non-Apple platforms, perhaps Windows or Linux. They exhibit traits of narcissistic defensiveness, intellectual arrogance, and low frustration tolerance when faced with disagreement. Their posting style suggests chronic online engagement, using antagonism as both entertainment and self-validation.

In short, this is someone who needs to win arguments to feel relevant, using moral superiority as armor. They mistake hostility for honesty and see mockery as debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://chatgpt.com/share/690d5d8d-693c-800c-bb26-48270bbb9e36
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

You make claims you cannot back as you avoid facts:

Your claim that the only security that matters is malware, is absurd.

What did you find in the CISA KEV database about iOS versus Android?
Chris wrote a script to look at the database, as did I to look at it.

What did you learn about iOS versus Android zero-day exploits from it?
Here... below is a script I wrote for that study which works on your mac.
###############################################################################
# Define script version
$scriptVersion = "kev.ps1 version 2.4 20250930"
## An Extensible cross-platform batch/powershell script to parse CISA KEV db
## Analyzes the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) database
## to compare iOS and Android-related security threats.
## a. Downloads lates KEV CSV or uses a local copy of the KEV CSV file
## b. Filters out irrelevant entries (e.g., smart appliances, printers)
## c. Uses keywords & vendor-product logic for platform-specific exploits
## d. Identifies shared vulnerabilities affecting both ecosystems
## e. Logs results to timestamped files in a clean ./logs directory
## f. Outputs Apple iOS vs Android exploit summaries to console & log files
## All logs are saved in the ./logs directory:
## A. ios_matches_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.log
## B. android_matches_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.log
## C. shared_matches_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.log
## D. kev_output_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.log (summary)
## Note the CISA KEV db lists only about 6% of all known vulnerabilities!
## <medium.com/@yotamperkal/cisa-kev-a-balanced-perspective-ff3856e69ba9>
## That's because the KEV db only contains exploits meeting these criteria:
## 1. The exploit has a valid CVE ID.
## 2. There is reliable evidence of active exploitation.
## 3. A clear remediation action is already available to the general public.
###############################################################################
## Windows Usage: C:\> kev.bat
## Where kev.bat is the following three lines of code:
## set "PS_SCRIPT=kev.ps1" REM iOS vs Android known patched exploits
## powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -File "%~dp0%PS_SCRIPT%"
## pause
## Linux/macOS Usage: $ pwsh ./kev.ps1
## Requires PowerShell Core (pwsh) <https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell>
## Make sure execution policy allows script execution:
## $ pwsh -Command "Set-ExecutionPolicy -Scope Process -ExecutionPolicy Bypass"
###############################################################################
## Version 1.0 20250829 (41L)
## Extensible Windows batch/powershell script to parse csv/json CISA KEV db
## Uses powershell to parse csv/json CISA database for iOS vs Android
## Added comment discipline rules for ASCII-only and no oxford comma
## CSV downloaded from GitHub mirror of CISA KEV database
## Keyword logic uses lowercase match on vendor, product, and vuln name
## Matching uses wildcard logic with simple substring detection
## Results printed to console with Write-Host
## Script can be extended to log output or refine keyword logic
## Verson 1.1 20250929 (56L)
## Adds time-stamped output file to current directory
## Uses Get-Date with custom format for filename
## Output file includes iOS and Android known exploit counts
## Output file UTF8 encoding for platform/editor compatibility
## Version 1.2 20250929 (68L)
## Expands keyword logic for iOS and Android ecosystems
## Adds ipad, watchos, macos, pixel, samsung, qualcomm, mediatek
## Improves platform distinction across shared components like WebKit
## Android common vendors & chipsets: pixel, samsung, qualcomm, mediatek
## iOS platforms: ipad, ipados, watchos, macos
## Used Join-Path to make filespecs usable on Windows/Linux/macOS
## Version 1.3 20250929 (87L)
## Added an output log to a separate file of each match with its source line
## Modified filespecs to enable macOS/Linux PowerCore portability
## Version 1.4 20250929 (97L)
## Included CVE ID in logs (Adds traceability & audit value)
## Added platform detection (Join-Path & $PWD)
## Add toggle for local file (avoid unnecessary d/l when testing)
## Version 1.5 20250929 (108L)
## Add exclusion filtering logic (e.g., samsung TVs)
## Exclusion filtering removes Apple smart home devices.
## Version 1.6 20250929 (130L)
## Added shared-match detection to avoid double counting overlapping attack
## surfaces in platform-specific summaries
## Version 1.7 20250929 (141L)
## Added vendor-product dictionary-style mapping to excluse false positives
## like "Samsung tv" or "refrigerator" or "Apple tv" or "homepod"
## Version 1.8 20250929 (148L)
## Refined keyword logic for deeper iOS & Android exploit detection
## around shared components like WebKit & cryptographic modules
## Apple includes subsystems like secure enclave, coremedia & launchd
## Android includes cryptographic modules & shared components like
## keymaster, webkit & play services.
## Version 1.9 20250929 (163L)
## Moved all log files into ./logs directory to reduce clutter
## Added usage instructions for macOS/Linux (pwsh)
## Version 2.0 20250929 (207L)
## Added toggle to include/exclude macOS from iOS counts
## Fixed platform detection (Join-Path & $PWD) console output
## Version 2.1 20250929 (212L)
## Added output of the1 PowerShell version (in case of mismatches)
## Version 2.2 20250930 (219L)
## Added date in the console output
## Version 2.3 20250930 (228L)
## Removed false positives from desktop and server-side CVEs
## Added 'chromium' & 'mojo' to iOS & Android keyword lists
## Improved detection of shared browser & sandbox escape exploits
## Added exclusion for Fortinet, Cisco, Oracle & Adobe using keywords of
## fortinet, fortios, fortiproxy, cisco, oracle, adobe, jenkins, mozilla,
## nagios, redis, qnap, crushftp
## Version 2.4 20250930 (231L)
## Added the script version to the console output for auditing purposes
###############################################################################
# Platform detection (v2.3)
$platform = $PSVersionTable.PSEdition
$version = $PSVersionTable.PSVersion
if ($platform -eq "Desktop") {
Write-Host "Running on platform: Windows PowerShell"
} elseif ($platform -eq "Core") {
if ($IsWindows) {
Write-Host "Running on platform: Windows (pwsh)"
} elseif ($IsLinux) {
Write-Host "Running on platform: Linux (pwsh)"
} elseif ($IsMacOS) {
Write-Host "Running on platform: macOS (pwsh)"
} else {
Write-Host "Running on platform: Unknown Core edition"
}
} else {
Write-Host "Running on platform: Unknown"
}
Write-Host "PowerShell version: $version"
# Download the KEV CSV from GitHub
$useLocalFile = $false # Set to $true for testing of existing downloads
$useLocalFile = $true # Set to $false to force download
$includeMacOS = $true # Set to $false to exclude macOS in iOS counts
$includeMacOS = $false # Set to $true to include macOS in iOS counts
if ($useLocalFile) {
$csvPath = Join-Path -Path $PWD -ChildPath "kev.csv"
Write-Host "Using local file: $csvPath"
} else {
$csvUrl = "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cisagov/kev-data/develop/known_exploited_vulnerabilities.csv"
$csvPath = Join-Path -Path $PWD -ChildPath "kev.csv"
Invoke-WebRequest -Uri $csvUrl -OutFile $csvPath
Write-Host "Downloaded fresh file: $csvPath"
}
# Define keyword logic for iOS and Android
# iOS includes Apple platforms and WebKit-based browsers
$iosKeywords = @(
"apple", "ios", "ipados", "watchos", "webkit", "safari",
"secure enclave", "coregraphics", "coremedia", "corefoundation",
"springboard", "launchd", "sandbox", "chromium", "mojo"
)
if ($includeMacOS) {
$iosKeywords += "macos"
}
# Android includes Google platforms and common Android vendors
$androidKeywords = @(
"android", "google", "pixel", "samsung", "qualcomm", "mediatek",
"play services", "keymaster", "keystore", "secure element", "omapi",
"webkit", "chromium", "mojo"
)
# Initialize counters for each platform
$iosCount = 0
$androidCount = 0
$timestamp = Get-Date -Format "yyyyMMdd_HHmmss"
$logDir = Join-Path -Path "." -ChildPath "logs"
if (-not (Test-Path $logDir)) {
New-Item -ItemType Directory -Path $logDir | Out-Null
}
$iosLogPath = Join-Path -Path $logDir -ChildPath "ios_matches_$timestamp.log"
$androidLogPath = Join-Path -Path $logDir -ChildPath "android_matches_$timestamp.log"
$sharedLogPath = Join-Path -Path $logDir -ChildPath "shared_matches_$timestamp.log"
$outputFile = Join-Path -Path $logDir -ChildPath "kev_output_$timestamp.log"
# Parse KEV CSV and count keyword matches
$excludeKeywords = @(
"refrigerator", "tv", "washer", "dryer", "smart appliance", "iot", "industrial", "printer",
"apple tv", "homepod", "airtag", "fortinet", "fortios", "fortiproxy", "cisco",
"oracle", "adobe", "jenkins", "mozilla", "nagios", "redis", "qnap", "crushftp"
)
$vendorProductMap = @{
"samsung" = @("galaxy", "android", "mobile", "tablet")
"qualcomm" = @("snapdragon", "modem", "chipset")
"apple" = @("iphone", "ipad", "ios", "watchos", "macbook")
}
if ($includeMacOS) {
$vendorProductMap["apple"] += "macos"
}
Import-Csv $csvPath | ForEach-Object {
$text = ($_.vendorProject + " " + $_.product + " " + $_.vulnerabilityName).ToLower()
$vendor = $_.vendorProject.ToLower()
$product = $_.product.ToLower()
# Skip irrelevant matches
if ($excludeKeywords | Where-Object { $text -like "*$_*" }) {
return
}
# Skip mismatched vendor-product combos
if ($vendorProductMap.ContainsKey($vendor)) {
$validProducts = $vendorProductMap[$vendor]
if (-not ($validProducts | Where-Object { $product -like "*$_*" })) {
return
}
}
$logEntry = "$($_.cveID): $text"
$iosMatch = $iosKeywords | Where-Object { $text -like "*$_*" }
$androidMatch = $androidKeywords | Where-Object { $text -like "*$_*" }
if ($iosMatch -and $androidMatch) {
$iosCount++
$androidCount++
Add-Content -Path $iosLogPath -Value "$logEntry`n"
Add-Content -Path $androidLogPath -Value "$logEntry`n"
Add-Content -Path $sharedLogPath -Value "$logEntry`n"
} elseif ($iosMatch) {
$iosCount++
Add-Content -Path $iosLogPath -Value "$logEntry`n"
} elseif ($androidMatch) {
$androidCount++
Add-Content -Path $androidLogPath -Value "$logEntry`n"
}
}
# Output results to console
Write-Host "KEV vulnerability summary ($scriptVersion) for: $(Get-Date -Format 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss')"
Write-Host "Estimated Apple-iOS-related exploits: $iosCount"
Write-Host "Estimated Android-related exploits: $androidCount"
if (Test-Path $sharedLogPath) {
$sharedCount = (Get-Content $sharedLogPath | Measure-Object).Count
Write-Host "Estimated shared exploits: $sharedCount"
Add-Content -Path $sharedLogPath -Value "Shared iOS/Android vulnerabilities:`n"
Add-Content -Path $sharedLogPath -Value "`nTotal shared matches: $sharedCount"
} else {
Write-Host "Estimated shared exploits: 0"
}
# Create time-stamped output file in current directory
# $outputFile = "kev_output_$timestamp.log"
# Allow for macOS/Linux PowerShell Core portability (filespec syntax)
# Write results to file
@(
"KEV vulnerability summary $timestamp",
"Estimated Apple-iOS-related exploits: $iosCount",
"Estimated Android-related exploits: $androidCount"
) | Out-File -FilePath $outputFile -Encoding UTF8
# Append a summary line to each match log (v1.4)
Add-Content -Path $iosLogPath -Value "`nTotal iOS matches: $iosCount"
Add-Content -Path $androidLogPath -Value "`nTotal Android matches: $androidCount"
###############################################################################
## end of kev.ps1
###############################################################################



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:33:50 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejepe$2cfrm$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

It has done that but also used and even help to design standards.

Hi Brocky,

Odd nick name. But whatever.

Your problem, as far as I can tell, is you believe only in propaganda.
Not truth.

What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?

1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/ -- Android devices are 50x more likely to be infected than iOS devices, showing the starkest difference in malware prevalence.

2. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/20-current-android-malware-stats/ -- Android malware attacks reached 33.3 million in 2024; iOS attacks remain very rare.

3. https://securelist.com/mobile-threat-report-2024/115494/ -- Android is the main target for mobile malware, with Trojan banker attacks up 196%; iOS sees far fewer infections.

4. https://46745145.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/46745145/MAPS_MTD/REPORT/GEN/Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report%202024%20FINAL%20(1).pdf
-- Android's ecosystem is more broadly exposed to attacks than iOS.

5. https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/android-vs-iphone-mobile-security
-- Android faces far higher malware volume; both require updates and safe practices.

6. https://www.qualysec.com/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS is more secure by default; Android needs careful management to match safety.

7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370667917_Comparative_Study_of_Information_Security_in_Mobile_Operating_Systems_Android_and_Apple_iOS
-- iOS has superior information security architecture versus Android.

8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312279414_Security_Evaluation_of_IOS_and_Android/fulltext/587b977308ae4445c06422df/Security-Evaluation-of-IOS-and-Android.pdf
-- iOS offers better enterprise security; Android requires careful management.

9. https://www.renemayrhofer.com/courses/android-security/selected-paper/2023/Android_and_iOS_Platform_Security-A_Comparison.pdf
-- iOS shows stronger hardware and system-level security in 2023-2024.

10. https://www.approov.io/hubfs/White%20Paper/WP-Comparison%20of%20Apple%2C%20Android%20and%20Huawei%20Mobile%20App%20Security%20v1.0%20FINAL(2).pdf
-- iOS apps are more secure by default due to App Store restrictions.

11. https://www.getastra.com/blog/mobile/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS's controlled ecosystem reduces malware exposure; Android's openness increases
the attack surface.

12. https://www.corrata.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mobile-Security-Whitepaper-Final-Nov-20112017.pdf
-- iOS is less susceptible to mass malware; Android's openness increases exposure.

13. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q1-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Enterprise spyware targets iOS even though Android dominates overall
malware volume.

14. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q2-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Mobile phishing and malicious web content are rising; iOS is increasingly targeted in enterprise.

15. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/12/26/mobile-devices-attacks/ -- iOS faced higher phishing exposure (18.4%) than Android (11.4%), despite Android's higher malware volume.

16. https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/vulnerability-comparison-android-vs-ios-in-the-face-of-cyber-attacks/
-- Android is more exposed to vulnerabilities, but iOS still faces targeted attacks.

17. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04754 -- Android devices are significantly more prone to persistent malware infections than iOS.

18. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12613 -- iOS offers stronger protection against unauthorized access; Android needs extra management.

19. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.13722 -- Both OSes have privacy/data collection issues; Android apps are more likely to leak sensitive information.

20. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2024/popets-2024-0047.pdf -- iOS privacy labels are slightly more effective than Android in helping users understand data collection.

21. https://www.promon.io/security-news/android-vs-ios-security -- Security depends more on user behavior, patching, and configuration than OS alone.

22. https://www.norton.com/blog/mobile/android-vs-ios-which-is-more-secure -- iOS generally offers stronger default security; user behavior is the main risk on both platforms.

23. https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/Tc13/reports/2024-mobile-security-index.pdf
-- Android is riskier in enterprise without strong management; mobile devices remain key breach vectors.

24. https://lp.zimperium.com/hubfs/Reports/2025%20Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report.pdf
-- Sideloaded apps and older Android devices greatly increase enterprise risk; iOS risk comes mostly from targeted attacks.

Actual facts play absolutely no role in your formulation of belief systems. Your entire belief system is fact-free propaganda from Apple marketing.

Assuming you're posting as an adult, you might be able to comprehend the
fact that Apple often claims to 'help design' standards, but historically that's been a way to slow-roll adoption until it suits their ecosystem.

Here are just some:

1. Indoor Mapping Data Format (IMDF) – Submitted to the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) as a community standard. https://www.ogc.org/announcement/open-geospatial-consortium-considering-apples-indoor-mapping-data-format-as-community-standard


2. Matter (Smart-Home Standard) – Founding member alongside Amazon, Google, Zigbee Alliance. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/12/amazon-apple-google-and-the-zigbee-alliance-to-develop-connectivity-standard


3. USB-C / USB Power Delivery – Adoption and alignment with universal connector standards.
https://support.apple.com/en-asia/105099 

4. General Standards Participation – Engineers participate in 700+ standards activities and 110+ SDOs. https://downloads.regulations.gov/NIST-2023-0005-0080/attachment_1.pdf 

5. Indoor Maps / Apple Maps Standardization – Standard format for submitting venue maps. https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/02/24/apples-indoor-mapping-format-adopted-as-community-standard


6. Smart-Home Interoperability – Development of royalty-free connectivity standards with other major players. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/12/amazon-apple-google-and-the-zigbee-alliance-to-develop-connectivity-standard


7. Communication & Networking Standards – Contributions in 5G, 6G, Wi-Fi, and related fields. https://downloads.regulations.gov/NIST-2023-0005-0080/attachment_1.pdf 

8. Accessory / Connector Standards – Enforcement of USB-C compliance for accessories.
https://support.apple.com/en-asia/105099 

9. OGC Standard Adoption – IMDF accepted into OGC Standards Baseline through Apple’s submission. https://www.ogc.org/announcement/ogc-membership-approves-new-community-standard-indoor-mapping-data-format-imdf


10. Smart Home Developer Ecosystem – Support for Matter SDK integration in iOS
and Apple Home.
https://developer.apple.com/apple-home/matter 

Thought you said you were educated on these matters. So be it. 
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:21:17 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10eje1t$2ceql$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

He does have an obvious agenda. :)

It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feel
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"...

You make claims you cannot support. And then you insist, you change the
topics, and you run from actual evidence. So be it. You are a bit amusing.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable

Actually an octogenarian educated at the best schools in this country, with multiple higher degrees, owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS &
Android.

Do you want me to profile you?
I did already you know.

All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)

Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!
--
I don't care if it's the truth about Apple or Google or Microsoft;
I just care that it's the truth.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feel
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"...

You make claims you cannot support. And then you insist, you change the topics, and you run from actual evidence. So be it. You are a bit amusing.

I simply tell the truth.
You *hate* the truth...

Specifically...

You *hate* that Apple propaganda promised security as a trade for choice.
And you got none of either.

No choice.
No security.

You *hate* that I prove that.
So be it.

You gave up everything for the promise of security.
And you didn't get it.

Why not?
Apple lied.

Apple restricted choice for a different reason.
Want to know what that is?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?

Well, where is the security Apple promised you for that trade in choice?

Did you look at the CISA KEV database yet?

There is no security.

You gave up everything...
For nothing...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 8:00:38 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejncm$6ng$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?

Well, where is the security Apple promised you for that trade in choice?

Did you look at the CISA KEV database yet?

There is no security.

You gave up everything...
For nothing...

That database does not support what you think it does.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 7:59:35 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejnan$kb$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feel
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"... >>

You make claims you cannot support. And then you insist, you change the
topics, and you run from actual evidence. So be it. You are a bit amusing.

I simply tell the truth.
You *hate* the truth...

Specifically...

You *hate* that Apple propaganda promised security as a trade for choice.
And you got none of either.

No choice.
No security.

You *hate* that I prove that.
So be it.

You gave up everything for the promise of security.
And you didn't get it.

Why not?
Apple lied.

Apple restricted choice for a different reason.
Want to know what that is?

You said nothing. Boring.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 8:00:38 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejncm$6ng$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?

Well, where is the security Apple promised you for that trade in choice?

Did you look at the CISA KEV database yet?

There is no security.

You gave up everything...
For nothing...

You keep making that claim... but then fail to back it.

In short: you had a bias and an agenda... one you cannot back with evidence.

And you will just repeat it. Boring.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 7:51:46 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejms2$2cuut$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

You make claims you cannot back as you avoid facts:

Your claim that the only security that matters is malware, is absurd.

What did you find in the CISA KEV database about iOS versus Android?

I found you do not understand what the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) database is.

So be it.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 7:47:44 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejmkf$1n40$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.

They do not control Google.

Maybe you're right

I am.

that Apple has no idea that Google collects information

Huh? Where did you come up with this bizarre straw man?
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 6, 2025 at 7:56:16 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10ejn4g$voa$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable

Actually an octogenarian educated at the best schools in this country, with multiple higher degrees, owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS & Android.

Do you want me to profile you?
I did already you know.

All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)

Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!

ChatGPT hit too close to home for you. :)

I would say ChatGPT did very well with that assessment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Give a psych profile of the person who wrote this:

A: The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection, bitterness, and identity-based hostility often seen in entrenched Usenet personalities who’ve built a sense of self around a specific ideological or technological tribe. Let’s break it down.

Tone and posture:
They present themselves as an authority — positioning “adult operating system
newsgroups” as the sophisticated, rational world, and “Apple newsgroups” as
childish and delusional. This “us vs. them” framing serves two purposes: asserting superiority while insulating their self-image from criticism.

Psychological traits visible:

• Grandiosity: They clearly see themselves as part of a more “adult,” “truth-telling” elite. That’s a compensatory stance — the kind people use when
they feel intellectually threatened or excluded.

• Projection: They accuse Apple users of “hating the truth,” but the fixation on that phrase suggests the author’s own discomfort with contrary views. Their emotional charge around “truth” signals insecurity rather than confidence.

• Rigidity and black-and-white thinking: Notice how everything divides neatly into “adult vs. child,” “truth vs. lies,” “Windows/Android = fine,
Apple = forbidden.” This moralistic framing is typical of obsessive or fanatical posters who can’t tolerate nuance.

• Hostility masked as reason: They couch insults in analytical language — “evidence I use to assess,” “welcome the truth” — trying to sound logical
while venting aggression. That’s intellectualized contempt, common among trolls who pride themselves on being rational but are driven by emotion.

• Possible resentment/identity wound: The repeated mention of “Apple trolls” and “fed to believe” implies a personal grudge — maybe a failed experience with Apple users or tech arguments that damaged their sense of status.

Overall profile:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable but socially alienated poster with strong identification to non-Apple platforms, perhaps Windows or Linux. They exhibit traits of narcissistic defensiveness, intellectual arrogance, and low frustration tolerance when faced with disagreement. Their posting style suggests chronic online engagement, using antagonism as both entertainment and self-validation.

In short, this is someone who needs to win arguments to feel relevant, using moral superiority as armor. They mistake hostility for honesty and see mockery as debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://chatgpt.com/share/690d5d8d-693c-800c-bb26-48270bbb9e36
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets <[email protected]> wrote:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:20:57 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10eje19$2s7o$[email protected]>:

Tyrone wrote:

desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like
you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.

Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.

These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple
trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe.

You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?

If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains.
If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.

On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.

I would say ChatGPT did very well with that assessment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Give a psych profile of the person who wrote this:

A: The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,
bitterness, and identity-based hostility often seen in entrenched Usenet personalities who’ve built a sense of self around a specific ideological or technological tribe. Let’s break it down.

Tone and posture:
They present themselves as an authority — positioning “adult operating system
newsgroups” as the sophisticated, rational world, and “Apple newsgroups” as
childish and delusional. This “us vs. them” framing serves two purposes: asserting superiority while insulating their self-image from criticism.

Psychological traits visible:

• Grandiosity: They clearly see themselves as part of a more “adult,”
“truth-telling” elite. That’s a compensatory stance — the kind people use when
they feel intellectually threatened or excluded.

• Projection: They accuse Apple users of “hating the truth,” but the
fixation on that phrase suggests the author’s own discomfort with contrary views. Their emotional charge around “truth” signals insecurity rather than
confidence.

• Rigidity and black-and-white thinking: Notice how everything divides
neatly into “adult vs. child,” “truth vs. lies,” “Windows/Android = fine,
Apple = forbidden.” This moralistic framing is typical of obsessive or fanatical posters who can’t tolerate nuance.

• Hostility masked as reason: They couch insults in analytical language
— “evidence I use to assess,” “welcome the truth” — trying to sound logical
while venting aggression. That’s intellectualized contempt, common among trolls who pride themselves on being rational but are driven by emotion.

• Possible resentment/identity wound: The repeated mention of “Apple
trolls” and “fed to believe” implies a personal grudge — maybe a failed
experience with Apple users or tech arguments that damaged their sense of status.

Overall profile:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable but socially alienated poster with strong identification to non-Apple platforms, perhaps Windows or Linux. They exhibit traits of narcissistic defensiveness, intellectual arrogance, and
low frustration tolerance when faced with disagreement. Their posting style suggests chronic online engagement, using antagonism as both entertainment and
self-validation.

In short, this is someone who needs to win arguments to feel relevant, using moral superiority as armor. They mistake hostility for honesty and see mockery
as debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://chatgpt.com/share/690d5d8d-693c-800c-bb26-48270bbb9e36

That's hilariously accurate :D

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Marion <[email protected]> wrote:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable

Actually an octogenarian

Why waste your precious time on ridiculous internet arguments?

educated at the best schools in this country, with
multiple higher degrees,

Lol no. You've previously stated you have college "degrees" which will be superficial and certainly not "higher". However, there's very little
evidence you actually learned anything from those diplomas.

owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS &
Android.

The overwhelming evidence speaks to the contrary.

Do you want me to profile you?

Do you remember when you tried to use chatgpt to make your arguments for
you? You had to keep "correcting" it to give the answer you wanted and then
it started hallucinating facts for you. I caught you out and you haven't
used it since.

I did already you know.

All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)

All projection.

Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 11/6/25 16:33, Alan wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

   "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race,
especially
    with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could
find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Because a good business will perform a "make or buy" assessment when
faced with such choices.

In some instances, they just acquire what they need as COTS. Other
times, they go invent it in their own R&D labs. And a third option is collaboration to tweak what's COTS (or emerging COTS) to better suit
their needs.

One can look at Apple's history of CPU uses to see this in play - and
changing over time:

6502 - COTS
68000 - COTS
G3, G4, G5 - collaboration
Intel x86 - COTS
M Series - in-house R&D

Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.

So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200 billion.

Not nothing, but not a bust-the-bank expense either. And in the context
of how much Google is paying NVIDIA for AI chip hardware (~$92B just in
2025), Apple's getting much of the benefits without the CAPEX...

...which also appears to follow their history of "*second* to move"
which Apple has shown to have pretty damn good risk/benefit payoffs.


-hh
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 7, 2025 at 1:04:00 AM MST, "Chris" wrote <10ek95g$1n57q$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets <[email protected]> wrote:

On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:20:57 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10eje19$2s7o$[email protected]>:

Tyrone wrote:

desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.

I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like >>> you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.

Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.

These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple
trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe. >>>
You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?

If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains. >>> If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.

On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.

I would say ChatGPT did very well with that assessment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Give a psych profile of the person who wrote this:

A: The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,
bitterness, and identity-based hostility often seen in entrenched Usenet
personalities who’ve built a sense of self around a specific ideological or
technological tribe. Let’s break it down.

Tone and posture:
They present themselves as an authority — positioning “adult operating system
newsgroups” as the sophisticated, rational world, and “Apple newsgroups” as
childish and delusional. This “us vs. them” framing serves two purposes: >> asserting superiority while insulating their self-image from criticism.

Psychological traits visible:

• Grandiosity: They clearly see themselves as part of a more “adult,”
“truth-telling” elite. That’s a compensatory stance — the kind people use when
they feel intellectually threatened or excluded.

• Projection: They accuse Apple users of “hating the truth,” but the
fixation on that phrase suggests the author’s own discomfort with contrary >> views. Their emotional charge around “truth” signals insecurity rather than
confidence.

• Rigidity and black-and-white thinking: Notice how everything divides
neatly into “adult vs. child,” “truth vs. lies,” “Windows/Android = fine,
Apple = forbidden.” This moralistic framing is typical of obsessive or
fanatical posters who can’t tolerate nuance.

• Hostility masked as reason: They couch insults in analytical language
— “evidence I use to assess,” “welcome the truth” — trying to sound logical
while venting aggression. That’s intellectualized contempt, common among >> trolls who pride themselves on being rational but are driven by emotion.

• Possible resentment/identity wound: The repeated mention of “Apple
trolls” and “fed to believe” implies a personal grudge — maybe a failed
experience with Apple users or tech arguments that damaged their sense of
status.

Overall profile:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable but socially alienated poster
with strong identification to non-Apple platforms, perhaps Windows or Linux. >> They exhibit traits of narcissistic defensiveness, intellectual arrogance, and
low frustration tolerance when faced with disagreement. Their posting style >> suggests chronic online engagement, using antagonism as both entertainment and
self-validation.

In short, this is someone who needs to win arguments to feel relevant, using >> moral superiority as armor. They mistake hostility for honesty and see mockery
as debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://chatgpt.com/share/690d5d8d-693c-800c-bb26-48270bbb9e36

That's hilariously accurate :D

ChatGPT is FAR from perfect. Not in the same universe. But it can be pretty amazingly correct at times.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 7, 2025 at 1:14:00 AM MST, "Chris" wrote <10ek9o8$1nacm$[email protected]>:

Marion <[email protected]> wrote:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable

Actually an octogenarian

Why waste your precious time on ridiculous internet arguments?

educated at the best schools in this country, with
multiple higher degrees,

Lol no. You've previously stated you have college "degrees" which will be superficial and certainly not "higher". However, there's very little
evidence you actually learned anything from those diplomas.

owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS &
Android.

The overwhelming evidence speaks to the contrary.

Do you want me to profile you?

Do you remember when you tried to use chatgpt to make your arguments for
you? You had to keep "correcting" it to give the answer you wanted and then it started hallucinating facts for you. I caught you out and you haven't
used it since.

I did already you know.

All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)

All projection.

Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!

He reminds me of another poster who likes to brag about his degrees... but never gets his stories straight.

I started tracking and was able to show posts where he did each of these (you being him of course:

-----
* You have two degrees, both in CS and you did not know IT was different.
* You have two degrees, both in IT.
* You have two degrees, one in IT and one in CS.
* You blame me for you confusing IT with IS though you offer no evidence.
* You cannot decide if you have "two" degrees or "several".
* They’re "honorary" except when you "did the work and took the tests."
* You project your confusion and dishonesty onto me.
-----

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO! At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets <[email protected]> wrote:

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.

I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about
only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and refer a couple more to HR.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 11/6/25 16:33, Alan wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

   "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>     with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) was an Apple invention designed by co-founder
Steve Wozniack for the Apple IIGS. It was later used on the Macintosh
and licensed out to Steve Jobs for use on the NeXT computers.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Apple has created or co-created numerous technologies over the years.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

You said nothing

Heh heh heh...

I love that you prove you own the mental capacity of a dog by claiming that
you can't understand even the simplest of strategic concepts I'm teaching.

a. Apple lied to you
b. You believed Apple's lies
c. Resulting in a device with substandard capabilities
d. Which has no better security than a device with far greater capabilities

That's saying a lot.
You just don't own the mental capacity required to understand the concepts.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

badgolferman wrote:

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.

I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or actually did the work. I�ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and refer a couple more to HR.

Hi badgolferman,

The points I make in this newsgroups are always supported by the facts.

What's different about me, is I don't fall prey to propaganda.
The Apple trolls are perfect sponges for Apple propaganda.

What happens is the Apple trolls can't comprehend anything but propaganda.
SO, of course, they can't comprehend anything that I try to teach them.

In effect, the Apple trolls all own the mental capacity of your pet.
They even have to lie about their lack of education (as Chris did).

The reason Apple trolls have no education is that their IQs are low.
a. It's why they believe the Apple propaganda.
b. It's why they are herd animals.
c. It's why they can't ever form consistent arguments.
etc.

The extreme lack of education is a defining feature of the Apple troll.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote:

The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,

What's your IQ, Brock?
(HINT: It's no better than about 40 or 50, right?)

What's your higher-educational level, Brock?
(HINT: It's zero right? It's a direct result of your low IQ).

Your entire life, you've known full well that you are stupid.
a. That's fine.
b. Nobody cares that you're incredibly stupid.
c. Least of all me.

The fact you know you're stupid, is WHY you're a herd animal, Brock.
Right?

You joined the herd because you couldn't think for yourself.
Being a herd animal is a defining feature of all you Apple trolls.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-11-07 17:04, Marion wrote:

badgolferman wrote:

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.

I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >> refer a couple more to HR.

Hi badgolferman,

The points I make in this newsgroups are always supported by the facts.

Like your point that iOS couldn't have an app that operated as an SMB
server on standard ports?

Like your point that catenary curves were understood as essential in
road racing?

:-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-11-07 14:00, Your Name wrote:

On 11/6/25 16:33, Alan wrote:

On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:

David B. wrote:

   "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, >>>>> especially
    with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's >>>>> Gemini."

*EXCELLENT*!

This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.

False.

Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could
find.

So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.

ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) was an Apple invention designed by co-founder
Steve Wozniack for the Apple IIGS. It was later used on the Macintosh
and licensed out to Steve Jobs for use on the NeXT computers.

Yes. I'm fully aware of that.

I deliberately chose a case where Apple developed a technology.

SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.

NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.

Etc.

Apple has created or co-created numerous technologies over the years.

But neither SCSI nor NuBus were among them.

SCSI came out of Shugart Associates "SASI", and later as it was
developed (in collaboration with NCR), it was renamed "SCSI" as ANSI
(the American National Standards Institute) wouldn't accept a standard
named after a company.

NuBUS was initially developed at MIT and became an IEEE standard in 1987.

Apple used them, because they were better than the alternatives
available at the time.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 7, 2025 at 2:24:06 PM MST, "badgolferman" wrote <10elo1m$3ocd$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets <[email protected]> wrote:

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.

I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things.

Right. Years ago I worked with an amazing lawyer. Had spoken to the Supreme Court a couple times. Real high end at his profession. He could not figure out how to change the ribbon in his printer (back when they used ribbons!)

Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and refer a couple more to HR.

Not surprising. *I* have degrees. They mean NOTHING in a forum like this.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 7, 2025 at 6:00:27 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10em4nb$2tk6$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

You said nothing

Heh heh heh...

I love that you prove you own the mental capacity of a dog by claiming that you can't understand even the simplest of strategic concepts I'm teaching.

a. Apple lied to you
b. You believed Apple's lies
c. Resulting in a device with substandard capabilities
d. Which has no better security than a device with far greater capabilities

That's saying a lot.
You just don't own the mental capacity required to understand the concepts.

Oh, I see -- you’ve distilled everything down to a four-step mental gymnastics
routine and now get to insult anyone who doesn't follow along. Classic.

But let's unpack your "strategy":

a. Apple lied. In what relevant way? You cannot say. I did not hold Apple up
as an expert here. You just are running to your narrative that is not
relevant.

b. I said nothing of what Apple said. You are arguing with yourself.

c. Device is substandard. Really? By what measurable standard? Speed? Ports? Battery? Without specifics, it’s just an opinion dressed up as logic.

d. Security is no better. Sure, if you ignore the evidence -- which you are.

So your argument is basically: "You're dumb because I say so."



It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 7, 2025 at 6:04:57 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10em4vo$30k1$[email protected]>:

badgolferman wrote:

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.

I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >> refer a couple more to HR.

Hi badgolferman,

The points I make in this newsgroups are always supported by the facts.

Nope. And you run from the facts.

1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/ -- Android devices are 50x more likely to be infected than iOS devices, showing the starkest difference in malware prevalence.

2. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/20-current-android-malware-stats/ -- Android malware attacks reached 33.3 million in 2024; iOS attacks remain very rare.

3. https://securelist.com/mobile-threat-report-2024/115494/ -- Android is the main target for mobile malware, with Trojan banker attacks up 196%; iOS sees far fewer infections.

4. https://46745145.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/46745145/MAPS_MTD/REPORT/GEN/Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report%202024%20FINAL%20(1).pdf
-- Android's ecosystem is more broadly exposed to attacks than iOS.

5. https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/android-vs-iphone-mobile-security
-- Android faces far higher malware volume; both require updates and safe practices.

6. https://www.qualysec.com/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS is more secure by default; Android needs careful management to match safety.

7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370667917_Comparative_Study_of_Information_Security_in_Mobile_Operating_Systems_Android_and_Apple_iOS
-- iOS has superior information security architecture versus Android.

8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312279414_Security_Evaluation_of_IOS_and_Android/fulltext/587b977308ae4445c06422df/Security-Evaluation-of-IOS-and-Android.pdf
-- iOS offers better enterprise security; Android requires careful management.

9. https://www.renemayrhofer.com/courses/android-security/selected-paper/2023/Android_and_iOS_Platform_Security-A_Comparison.pdf
-- iOS shows stronger hardware and system-level security in 2023-2024.

10. https://www.approov.io/hubfs/White%20Paper/WP-Comparison%20of%20Apple%2C%20Android%20and%20Huawei%20Mobile%20App%20Security%20v1.0%20FINAL(2).pdf
-- iOS apps are more secure by default due to App Store restrictions.

11. https://www.getastra.com/blog/mobile/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS's controlled ecosystem reduces malware exposure; Android's openness increases
the attack surface.

12. https://www.corrata.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mobile-Security-Whitepaper-Final-Nov-20112017.pdf
-- iOS is less susceptible to mass malware; Android's openness increases exposure.

13. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q1-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Enterprise spyware targets iOS even though Android dominates overall
malware volume.

14. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q2-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Mobile phishing and malicious web content are rising; iOS is increasingly targeted in enterprise.

15. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/12/26/mobile-devices-attacks/ -- iOS faced higher phishing exposure (18.4%) than Android (11.4%), despite Android's higher malware volume.

16. https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/vulnerability-comparison-android-vs-ios-in-the-face-of-cyber-attacks/
-- Android is more exposed to vulnerabilities, but iOS still faces targeted attacks.

17. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04754 -- Android devices are significantly more prone to persistent malware infections than iOS.

18. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12613 -- iOS offers stronger protection against unauthorized access; Android needs extra management.

19. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.13722 -- Both OSes have privacy/data collection issues; Android apps are more likely to leak sensitive information.

20. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2024/popets-2024-0047.pdf -- iOS privacy labels are slightly more effective than Android in helping users understand data collection.

21. https://www.promon.io/security-news/android-vs-ios-security -- Security depends more on user behavior, patching, and configuration than OS alone.

22. https://www.norton.com/blog/mobile/android-vs-ios-which-is-more-secure -- iOS generally offers stronger default security; user behavior is the main risk on both platforms.

23. https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/Tc13/reports/2024-mobile-security-index.pdf
-- Android is riskier in enterprise without strong management; mobile devices remain key breach vectors.

24. https://lp.zimperium.com/hubfs/Reports/2025%20Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report.pdf
-- Sideloaded apps and older Android devices greatly increase enterprise risk; iOS risk comes mostly from targeted attacks.

What's different about me, is I don't fall prey to propaganda.

What makes you think those studies and the like are "propaganda"?

The Apple trolls are perfect sponges for Apple propaganda.

What happens is the Apple trolls can't comprehend anything but propaganda. SO, of course, they can't comprehend anything that I try to teach them.

In effect, the Apple trolls all own the mental capacity of your pet.
They even have to lie about their lack of education (as Chris did).

The reason Apple trolls have no education is that their IQs are low.
a. It's why they believe the Apple propaganda.
b. It's why they are herd animals.
c. It's why they can't ever form consistent arguments.
etc.

The extreme lack of education is a defining feature of the Apple troll.

Notice you lash out when you are insecure.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Nov 7, 2025 at 6:13:12 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10em5f8$2mec8$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets wrote:

The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,

What's your IQ, Brock?

It is irrelevant here. What is relevant is evidence. And you run from it:

1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/ -- Android devices are 50x more likely to be infected than iOS devices, showing the starkest difference in malware prevalence.

2. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/20-current-android-malware-stats/ -- Android malware attacks reached 33.3 million in 2024; iOS attacks remain very rare.

3. https://securelist.com/mobile-threat-report-2024/115494/ -- Android is the main target for mobile malware, with Trojan banker attacks up 196%; iOS sees far fewer infections.

4. https://46745145.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/46745145/MAPS_MTD/REPORT/GEN/Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report%202024%20FINAL%20(1).pdf
-- Android's ecosystem is more broadly exposed to attacks than iOS.

5. https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/android-vs-iphone-mobile-security
-- Android faces far higher malware volume; both require updates and safe practices.

6. https://www.qualysec.com/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS is more secure by default; Android needs careful management to match safety.

7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370667917_Comparative_Study_of_Information_Security_in_Mobile_Operating_Systems_Android_and_Apple_iOS
-- iOS has superior information security architecture versus Android.

8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312279414_Security_Evaluation_of_IOS_and_Android/fulltext/587b977308ae4445c06422df/Security-Evaluation-of-IOS-and-Android.pdf
-- iOS offers better enterprise security; Android requires careful management.

9. https://www.renemayrhofer.com/courses/android-security/selected-paper/2023/Android_and_iOS_Platform_Security-A_Comparison.pdf
-- iOS shows stronger hardware and system-level security in 2023-2024.

10. https://www.approov.io/hubfs/White%20Paper/WP-Comparison%20of%20Apple%2C%20Android%20and%20Huawei%20Mobile%20App%20Security%20v1.0%20FINAL(2).pdf
-- iOS apps are more secure by default due to App Store restrictions.

11. https://www.getastra.com/blog/mobile/ios-vs-android-security/ -- iOS's controlled ecosystem reduces malware exposure; Android's openness increases
the attack surface.

12. https://www.corrata.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mobile-Security-Whitepaper-Final-Nov-20112017.pdf
-- iOS is less susceptible to mass malware; Android's openness increases exposure.

13. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q1-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Enterprise spyware targets iOS even though Android dominates overall
malware volume.

14. https://www.lookout.com/threat-intelligence/report/q2-2024-mobile-landscape-threat-report
-- Mobile phishing and malicious web content are rising; iOS is increasingly targeted in enterprise.

15. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/12/26/mobile-devices-attacks/ -- iOS faced higher phishing exposure (18.4%) than Android (11.4%), despite Android's higher malware volume.

16. https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/vulnerability-comparison-android-vs-ios-in-the-face-of-cyber-attacks/
-- Android is more exposed to vulnerabilities, but iOS still faces targeted attacks.

17. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04754 -- Android devices are significantly more prone to persistent malware infections than iOS.

18. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12613 -- iOS offers stronger protection against unauthorized access; Android needs extra management.

19. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.13722 -- Both OSes have privacy/data collection issues; Android apps are more likely to leak sensitive information.

20. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2024/popets-2024-0047.pdf -- iOS privacy labels are slightly more effective than Android in helping users understand data collection.

21. https://www.promon.io/security-news/android-vs-ios-security -- Security depends more on user behavior, patching, and configuration than OS alone.

22. https://www.norton.com/blog/mobile/android-vs-ios-which-is-more-secure -- iOS generally offers stronger default security; user behavior is the main risk on both platforms.

23. https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/Tc13/reports/2024-mobile-security-index.pdf
-- Android is riskier in enterprise without strong management; mobile devices remain key breach vectors.

24. https://lp.zimperium.com/hubfs/Reports/2025%20Global%20Mobile%20Threat%20Report.pdf
-- Sideloaded apps and older Android devices greatly increase enterprise risk; iOS risk comes mostly from targeted attacks.

(HINT: It's no better than about 40 or 50, right?)

What's your higher-educational level, Brock?
(HINT: It's zero right? It's a direct result of your low IQ).

Again you are wrong, but it is not relevant. You are pushing an ad hominem because you cannot back your claims.

Your entire life, you've known full well that you are stupid.
a. That's fine.
b. Nobody cares that you're incredibly stupid.
c. Least of all me.

The fact you know you're stupid, is WHY you're a herd animal, Brock.
Right?

You joined the herd because you couldn't think for yourself.
Being a herd animal is a defining feature of all you Apple trolls.

Notice you just lash out when faced with facts. That is on you.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-11-08 04:30:52 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:

On Nov 7, 2025 at 2:24:06 PM MST, "badgolferman" wrote <10elo1m$3ocd$[email protected]>:

Brock McNuggets <[email protected]> wrote:

As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you
impressed? NO! At least you should not be... not for the context of
here, anyway.

I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things.

Right. Years ago I worked with an amazing lawyer. Had spoken to the Supreme Court a couple times. Real high end at his profession. He could not figure out
how to change the ribbon in his printer (back when they used ribbons!)

Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >> refer a couple more to HR.

Not surprising. *I* have degrees. They mean NOTHING in a forum like this.

They mean nothing in many many places. A lot of people with a
university degree are doing jobs that have zero to do with their
degree*, yet still expect to be paid more simply because they have a
piece of paper. :-\

* This is especailly true of some of the airy-fairy 'useless' degrees,
such as arts, philosophy, politics, etc.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2