Even though app seems like it's short for application it is rather short for "Mobile Application".
Bullshit. People have been shortening application to app for decades. NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, and Mac OS X all used
The founders of the USA created a system of checks and balances to restrain the government. This included splitting powers between the state and federal governments and splitting the power of the federal government between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, all of which were appointed by different mechanisms.
They didn't feel the need to provide similar checks and balances on the power of rich people or corporations, because neither was particularly powerful in the US at the time of founding (if they'd looked at the East India Company a bit more closely, they might have done things differently).
A few years ago, United was about the only US carrier to make a profit. Unfortunately, all of them made a loss on the business of actually flying planes. They all buy fuel futures to let them plan their operating costs in advance and United made a fairly hefty profit selling some of theirs when prices spiked. I don't know if they've managed to make a profit operating planes since then, but the economics of operating an airline is deeply strange. RyanAir, for example, gets sufficient subsidies from a lot of the small airports that they fly to that they can make a profit even if the plane is empty, the passengers are just there to justify the subsidies (they won't be renewed if they don't deliver a sufficiently large total number of passengers). Anything that they take from their passengers is pure profit.
Over the last two or three decades, there's been such a race to the bottom for airlines that they're basically having to sell their tickets at below cost and make money elsewhere. They're not the only business to hit this. Some of the supermarkets in the UK got bad press about five years ago for paying farmers below cost for milk. Milk goes off sufficiently quickly that unless you have a second customer lined up, if they supermarket refuses to pay your production costs you either make a small loss selling to them or make a large loss disposing of the milk. In the long term, this isn't sustainable, because it just pushes farms out of the milk business. The same seems to be happening with airlines.
Face it, Apple doesn't care about their users, they only care about their revenue.
The same is true of Google. The difference is that Google gets all of its revenue from ads, whereas Apple gets most of theirs from people buying the devices, so they'll make money from you even if you never run any apps that run annoying popups, whereas Google has a big financial incentive to make it difficult for you to avoid seeing ads.
Turn off auto-sync for your emails too. You don't need to respond in seconds. It's an email.
That's no reason to turn off auto-sync, just turn off notifications for emails. With auto-sync, the emails will be there the next time that you look at your phone, but won't require you to respond immediately.
I'm not sure if your unit is correct... I am quite sure that you meant £1 per kWh (Kilo Watt Hour) per year.
£1 per Watt for one year. Rough estimate, but it's in the right ballpark. I pay 12p/kWh. That's £0.00012 for 1W for one hour. For one day, it costs £0.00288. For 365 days, it costs £1.0512, so an estimate of £1/Wyear is only 5% off. The unit of kWh per year wouldn't make sense: Watts are a unit of power (energy per unit time). 1kWh is one kW (1000W) for one hour. i.e. my price of £0.12/kWh means that it costs £0.12 to have something that draws 1kW on for one hour (or to have something that draws 100W on for ten hours, and so on). I probably should have written £1/Wyear for consistency with kWh or £1/(W/year), but I assumed that readers could figure it out and was lazy.
A 6 wH router would require 52.56 kW to operate in a year (24/7 and 365 days a year)... So, I don't get the part where you are talking about saving.
What is a 6wH router? Even if you mean 6Wh, that doesn't make sense: how long does it take to consume 1Wh (a unit of energy, not of power)? If you mean a 6W router, then will consume 52.56Wh in one year (not 52.56kW, because that's a unit of power and when you divide by time [i.e. over a year] then you get energy, not power). In contrast, a 60W old PC will consume 525.6kWh. At £0.12/kWh, that works out at £6.3072 to operate the small router or £63.072 to operate the old PC for one year. These numbers are very close to my back-of-an-envelope estimate of £6 vs £60, but more accurately the saving is £56.7648/year, or £113.5296 over two years. If you spend £100 on a low-power embedded router board to replace a 60W old PC that you got for free then you will be £13.5296 better off after two years (assuming electricity prices don't go up and you're on the same-priced tariff as me). After four years, you'll be over £100 better off. The one that I bought lasted 5 years before it was too slow for the network, so that's a saving of £283.824 of electricity. The new version of the same board (three gigE ethernet adaptors and enough CPU power to happily handle line rate on all of them) costs £125, probably around £160 by the time that you've added a case and some flash storage. So over the lifetime of the device (assuming it only lasts five years - I'd actually be quite surprised if GigE is not fast enough in 5 years for most home users), the saving is around £120, more if electricity prices go up. The break-even point is just over two years. As an added bonus, you get a small form-factor device that's silent, so can be hidden in a corner in a room that you actually use, or stored in an under-stairs cupboard without overheating.
Using an old PC for this is likely to be a waste of money and be inconvenient. If you can get £20 for the old PC from someone who actually needs a machine capable of running a GUI, then you're even better off!
Raven, read the post by PhunkySchtuff again. There is no mention of 87600 anywhere.
You might want to try again. He says:
At an optimistic 100W, that's 87600 kWh/year
Looks like it contains the number 87600 to me...
"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)