Would you file an FTC or FCC complaint for Android T-Mobile

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:

On 04/07/2014 06:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/06/2014 09:23 AM, John McGaw wrote:

On 4/4/2014 11:55 AM, Danny D. wrote:
Long story short, I believe T-Mobile lied to the consumer by claiming
the LG Optimus F3 and LG Optimus L9 have both 4GB of internal memory
and that they can use up to a 32 GB external microsd card.

Without arguing why I feel that way, I just wish to ask here whether
the complaint rightly goes to the FTC or to the FCC?

On the one hand, it's (grossly) false and misleading advertising.
On the other hand, it's a communication device.

Whom would you file the complaint to?
How?

I would complain to neither since both claims seem to be literally
true. If
I made such a purchase and wanted somebody to blame for the results then
I'd have to start by blaming myself for not doing a bit of basic research
before the act. Whinging afterward seldom does any good.

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations --
motor, wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these
specifically because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When
was the last time you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you
be wanting headlights with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

TJ

The last two cars I bought actually do better than the EPA estimate
most of the time. But I'm not a leadfoot most of the time.
Eric

 

[TJ]

On 04/11/2014 05:47 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/08/2014 07:58 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 05:52 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

I should have read this newsgroup before buying the phone. I've found
that people who review products in various "forums" and
sales/manufacturers' websites generally don't have a clue.

Straying a bit off-topic, but the same thing can be said for most user
reviews. Some are done by shills paid by competitors to pan the item.
Some are done by people who have purchased it but haven't even opened
the "box" yet. And some are done by kids, who by definition think they
know everything. Maybe 10% are honest reviews. Trouble is, it can be
hard to find which 10% that is.

I automatically disbelieve any with piss-poor grammar, spelling,
punctuation, etc., as well as those who just sound stupid. I'd guess
less than 10%, but I'm a hopeful pessimist at heart :-(

I'm a farmer. Except for four years at a state university and a two-year
stint in the military at the request of Richard Nixon and The Congress
of The United States, I've always been a farmer.

If you were to look up the word "optimist" in an illustrated dictionary,
you'd probably see a picture of a farmer.

TJ

 

[TJ]

On 04/11/2014 05:44 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/08/2014 06:05 AM, dave wrote:

Use Youtube video tutorials.

Sorry, unless for something truly simple I regard youtube instructional
videos as barely more reliable than advertisements or reviews. I looked
at several claiming to show how to bend some parts of my Canon A720is
camera so it would not constantly be signaling 'low battery'. Theirs
didn't even look like mine.

I found one on using a Harbor Freight Chain Saw Sharpener to be rather
helpful. It showed me how the thing was supposed to work, so I could see
what had to be modified on mine to make up for the shoddy workmanship of
its construction. It did a fine job once I fixed it.

TJ

 

[TJ]

On 04/11/2014 05:58 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:16 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 06:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations --
motor, wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these
specifically because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When
was the last time you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you
be wanting headlights with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

That number is actually dependent on the kind of driving you do -- the
only value the mpg rating has is as a comparison tool with other
vehicles rated by the same entity. That's very different.

Never having bought a new car, I'll take your word for the miles/tank
thing. All things considered, I've been satisfied with the cheap used
cars I've purchased. You can test drive them, sniff, listen, look at
the oil and transmission fluid, bounce them, push buttons, etc. I would
never buy a car -- even a new one -- just by reading the spec sheet or
instruction manual.

OTOH, I don't have much confidence in my ability to choose or fix a car
with electrical/computer-driven works. In this case I have to trust the
manufacturer based on previous experience. This means I buy only
Toyota, or maybe Mazda. GM and Nissan cars have been disappointing, and
a friend says he would never own a BMW if his son wasn't a BMW mechanic
and could get him free repair and discounts on purchases. Toyotas,
however, have been bulletproof no matter how badly they were abused.

I didn't say the cars were new.

TJ

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:56:25 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <saggk99b839eddmpqsl0cl96kk3mains1r@4ax.com>,
nobody@nada.com> wrote:

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?

they're guessing which is which, which means there's no difference.

They are probably guessing so there is probably no difference. If you
do a vaild statistical analysis, you can compute the "probability".

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:19:54 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/08/2014 05:33 PM, Paul Miner wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D." <dannyd@is.invalid
wrote:

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Until they get slapped in the face with the Trout of Truth

Or they really don't care because it does what the need it to do.

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:25:33 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

But when they say there is too much bloatware, won't you wonder what
the consequences of that were?

How about asking on the section for the phone of interest on any of
the more than a few android forums. Of course if you don't trust
anyone, then no source will be of value.

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

 

[dave]

On 04/11/2014 08:30 AM, nospam wrote:

In article <Ga-dnfT5YsgcB9vOnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the
breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the
shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure
tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no
reason.

aliasing is due to undersampling, not a codec, and the sampling rate is
high enough to reproduce all audible frequencies (and then some),
especially for anyone past about 20-30 years old.

i guarantee that in a double-blind test you won't be able to tell the
difference between an original aiff and an aac. countless such tests
have shown this to be true for others.

I am referring to SBR, which you edited away.

 

[dave]

On 04/11/2014 08:53 AM, nospam wrote:

In article <VqidnaTe3OsyYNrOnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

 

[nospam]

In article <q5-dnVcJRbY14tTOnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
<ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/11/2014 05:57 PM, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:25:33 -0700, The Real Bev
bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

But when they say there is too much bloatware, won't you wonder what
the consequences of that were?

Annoyance at having to delete it just so you don't have to look at it.
Like ads. I'm not going to respond to them and I just don't want to
look at them. I'm trying to decide whether I would assume they took up
significant amounts of space or not, but I'm leaning toward "How could a
company be stupid enough to put all this crap on something if it keeps
users from doing something else that they want to do?"

How about asking on the section for the phone of interest on any of
the more than a few android forums. Of course if you don't trust
anyone, then no source will be of value.

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

--
Cheers,
Bev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Subscribe today to "Fire in the Hole - the Quarterly Journal
for Incinerator Toilet Enthusiasts" -- Andrew

 

[TJ]

On 04/12/2014 02:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Only on Usenet. And those who comment on news articles, of course. But
face-to-face, no. I deal with the general public in a seasonal retail
situation on a daily basis, and I find that most by far are decent,
honest folk.

TJ

 

[Arfa Daily]

"josephkk" <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d6jck9th30ffagqu5o06mm0g3lgbeo0nuu@4ax.com...

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:


Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

TJ

Real bad leadfoot eh?

?-)

I told a friend the other day that I drove a Ford Focus Digital Edition.
"What's that then ?" he asked. "I've never heard of that model".

"Ah... " said I. "It only has two speeds - going and stopped ..." d

Needless to say, I don't get very good mpg ...

Arfa

 

[tlvp]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:08:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

> if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Tell that to an epileptic driving north past a stand of roadside trees at
sunset. Can't hear the rapid cycling of sun and shade, but it can sure
trigger a fit. (You're welcome.) Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

 

[dave]

On 04/12/2014 11:08 AM, nospam wrote:

In article <q5-dnVcJRbY14tTOnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

 

[dave]

On 04/12/2014 09:40 PM, tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:08:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Tell that to an epileptic driving north past a stand of roadside trees at
sunset. Can't hear the rapid cycling of sun and shade, but it can sure
trigger a fit. (You're welcome.) Cheers, -- tlvp

Autistic people can see with their skin.

http://www.aes.org/events/129/broadcastsessions/?ID=2411

Seminar on psychoacoustics and listening fatigue and digital playback

 

[nospam]

In article <TOmdnSpW1oCIBtfOnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
<ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

 

[Leif Neland]

Den 13-04-2014, skrev nospam:

In article <TOmdnSpW1oCIBtfOnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.
I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

Leif

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

 

[nospam]

In article <mn.6ced7de4cff8d90b.130671@neland.dk>, Leif Neland
<leif@neland.dk> wrote:

wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.

nope. it's in normal listening conditions, including using top quality
equipment.

in a double-blind test, people consistently *can't* tell the difference.

I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

they don't, since a quality mp3 is indistinguishable from the original.
again, double-blind tests confirm this.

 

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:18:39 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <mn.6ced7de4cff8d90b.130671@neland.dk>, Leif Neland
leif@neland.dk> wrote:

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.

nope. it's in normal listening conditions, including using top quality
equipment.

in a double-blind test, people consistently *can't* tell the difference.

I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

they don't, since a quality mp3 is indistinguishable from the original.
again, double-blind tests confirm this.

How about some links to these double blind tests? I'd like to see the
details of how they were performed.