Just keep in mind that, generally speaking, the more water resistant you make something the fewer holes (ports) it has to have to achieve that water resistance. In my opinion Apple is heading for a completely sealed device with no ports, no physical buttons, and completely wireless.
Agree! Totally! Thinner, lighter, Increased integration with WirelessWhatever...
The tradeoffs are: 1) Less battery life (both between charges and between batteries) 2) Less repairability as it becomes an increasingly sealed, single unit
Since its inception, the IPhone has been on a 2 year life cycle where anything beyond 2 years is a bonus. That makes a high end Iphone (Plus model with 256Gb) at a cost of $500/year equivalent to buying a low end Windows laptop every year.
Just as laptops have become low end commodities and therefor Macs are marketed to an increasingly ever shrinking high-end audience, the IPhone may be headed in the same direction. While I am not suggesting that Apple should be marketing to the low-end budget market, I think it unwise to limit themselves to only the high-end pros as it is doing with its Macs...
Just keep in mind that, generally speaking, the more water resistant you make something the fewer holes (ports) it has to have to achieve that water resistance. In my opinion Apple is heading for a completely sealed device with no ports, no physical buttons, and completely wireless.
Agree! Totally! Thinner, lighter, Increased integration with WirelessWhatever...
The tradeoffs are: 1) Less battery life (both between charges and between batteries) 2) Less repairability as it becomes an increasingly sealed, single unit
Since its inception, the IPhone has been on a 2 year life cycle where anything beyond 2 years is a bonus. That makes a high end Iphone (Plus model with 256Gb) at a cost of $500/year equivalent to buying a low end Windows laptop every year.
Just as laptops have become low end commodities and therefor Macs are marketed to an increasingly ever shrinking high-end audience, the IPhone may be headed in the same direction. While I am not suggesting that Apple should be marketing to the low-end budget market, I think it unwise to limit themselves to only the high-end pros as it is doing with its Macs...
Iphones have a quite high resale value after 2 years that reduces their actual long term cost to often a lower one than even a mid range Android.
The less battery life trope is false, the Iphone except for the 6s (which got the taptic engine and significantly less internal space), usually has gotten more battery life for the same exact same use case.
What has changed though is that intensity and breadth of of use has increased A LOT over the last 9 years. People use their phones for a hell a lot of more things than before and for longer too. So, if you continue doing the same thing as 3 years back you get the same battery life, but you're not so the perceived battery life may have diminished.
Repairability has decreased but most Iphones aren't repaired anyway. Got about 20+ in extended family over the last 9.5 years and none has needed to be repaired. Including Ipads, those 7-8 individuals have had 30 devices that continued to be used, some for as much as 7 years (like the 3GS I still plug on my stereo) or the Ipad 2 given to one of my daughters.
I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle, considering the resales price of two years phone that seems like a totally made up stat.
Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.
Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.
Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit.
There's more to it than the actual test. For example, let's say two companies are testing water resistance of their phones. To make numbering simple, let's say a device has to score over 50 to attain an IP68 rating and over 40 to get an IP67 rating. Company A and B both test 100 phones and get results from 55-75. Since all 100 devices were over 50 Company B proclaims them to be sufficiently water resistant to get the IP68 rating.
However, company A is concerned about wear & tear having an effect on water resistance. So they simulate one year of use and retest those same 100 phones. Now the scores have dropped and range from 45-60. Many pass the required score of 50 to get IP68, but some don't. Company A decides to play it safe and assigns an IP67 rating.
Which of these companies do you think is Apple and which is Samsung?
Informative and good to know, first time I'd seen Apple's test procedures detailed. Where did you find it?
Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.
Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.
Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit.
There's more to it than the actual test. For example, let's say two companies are testing water resistance of their phones. To make numbering simple, let's say a device has to score over 50 to attain an IP68 rating and over 40 to get an IP67 rating. Company A and B both test 100 phones and get results from 55-75. Since all 100 devices were over 50 Company B proclaims them to be sufficiently water resistant to get the IP68 rating.
However, company A is concerned about wear & tear having an effect on water resistance. So they simulate one year of use and retest those same 100 phones. Now the scores have dropped and range from 45-60. Many pass the required score of 50 to get IP68, but some don't. Company A decides to play it safe and assigns an IP67 rating.
Which of these companies do you think is Apple and which is Samsung?
Informative and good to know, first time I'd seen Apple's test procedures detailed. Where did you find it?
I never said these are Apples procedures. I'm highlighting that water resistance ratings are just simple tests that don't take into account time or wear/tear. For example, nothing in the IP rating states a device must retain the same water resistance for, say, 1 year or 1,000 hours of actual use. Or 50,000 presses of a button.
Apple devices have been tested and found to significantly exceed their water resistance ratings. Yet Apple still puts a lower rating on the devices it sells. One possible reason for this is what I mentioned - that Apple does tests on devices under various conditions (including simulated wear & tear). So an iPhone rated at IP67 would pass an IP68 test when new, but after a year would still pass IP67. Since people are always testing water resistance on brand-new devices, it makes sense they would score better than used devices.
Samsung, OTOH, has had new devices that don't even meet their rating. Clearly they aren't being as stringent in their testing methods as Apple even though they both advertise the same rating.
Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.
Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.
Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit.
There's more to it than the actual test. For example, let's say two companies are testing water resistance of their phones. To make numbering simple, let's say a device has to score over 50 to attain an IP68 rating and over 40 to get an IP67 rating. Company A and B both test 100 phones and get results from 55-75. Since all 100 devices were over 50 Company B proclaims them to be sufficiently water resistant to get the IP68 rating.
However, company A is concerned about wear & tear having an effect on water resistance. So they simulate one year of use and retest those same 100 phones. Now the scores have dropped and range from 45-60. Many pass the required score of 50 to get IP68, but some don't. Company A decides to play it safe and assigns an IP67 rating.
Which of these companies do you think is Apple and which is Samsung?
Informative and good to know, first time I'd seen Apple's test procedures detailed. Where did you find it?
I never said these are Apples procedures.
Oh, sorry then. The way you had written the post implied it was, or at least Apple and Samsung's testing procedures were factually different. They could be of course, or perhaps both use the same general and Apple is just more conservative with the results. A company I regularly deal with, 3M, tends to under-promise and over-deliver which we know Apple will sometimes do.
Just keep in mind that, generally speaking, the more water resistant you make something the fewer holes (ports) it has to have to achieve that water resistance. In my opinion Apple is heading for a completely sealed device with no ports, no physical buttons, and completely wireless.
Agree! Totally! Thinner, lighter, Increased integration with WirelessWhatever...
The tradeoffs are: 1) Less battery life (both between charges and between batteries) 2) Less repairability as it becomes an increasingly sealed, single unit
Since its inception, the IPhone has been on a 2 year life cycle where anything beyond 2 years is a bonus. That makes a high end Iphone (Plus model with 256Gb) at a cost of $500/year equivalent to buying a low end Windows laptop every year.
Just as laptops have become low end commodities and therefor Macs are marketed to an increasingly ever shrinking high-end audience, the IPhone may be headed in the same direction. While I am not suggesting that Apple should be marketing to the low-end budget market, I think it unwise to limit themselves to only the high-end pros as it is doing with its Macs...
Iphones have a quite high resale value after 2 years that reduces their actual long term cost to often a lower one than even a mid range Android.
The less battery life trope is false, the Iphone except for the 6s (which got the taptic engine and significantly less internal space), usually has gotten more battery life for the same exact same use case.
What has changed though is that intensity and breadth of of use has increased A LOT over the last 9 years. People use their phones for a hell a lot of more things than before and for longer too. So, if you continue doing the same thing as 3 years back you get the same battery life, but you're not so the perceived battery life may have diminished.
Repairability has decreased but most Iphones aren't repaired anyway. Got about 20+ in extended family over the last 9.5 years and none has needed to be repaired. Including Ipads, those 7-8 individuals have had 30 devices that continued to be used, some for as much as 7 years (like the 3GS I still plug on my stereo) or the Ipad 2 given to one of my daughters.
I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle, considering the resales price of two years phone that seems like a totally made up stat.
1) Good resale value after two years? ROFL... 2) No less battery life? Only if (as you did) you compare new phones with sucky battery life to older phones with sucky battery life. The fact is, and what I pointed out, is that in their race to thinnes Apple cannot put in a larger battery -- so battery life both between charges and between batteries is less than it could be. 3) Most phones aren't repaired. ROFL.... 4) "I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle" -- I got it from virtually every carrier contract for the last ten years as well as Apple's own trade-in programs. They're all 2 years or less. Actually, except the newer agreements where you buy your phone independently of carrier's data plan, most carriers bury the cost of the phone in with the data plan so, at the end of two years, if you just keep paying for a new phone whether you get one or not.
Everything I see about this phone makes me interested. From discussion on design to increased water resistance. I take rumours like this with a pinch of salt but I'm looking forward to it even the speculation is true.
Just keep in mind that, generally speaking, the more water resistant you make something the fewer holes (ports) it has to have to achieve that water resistance. In my opinion Apple is heading for a completely sealed device with no ports, no physical buttons, and completely wireless.
Agree! Totally! Thinner, lighter, Increased integration with WirelessWhatever...
The tradeoffs are: 1) Less battery life (both between charges and between batteries) 2) Less repairability as it becomes an increasingly sealed, single unit
Since its inception, the IPhone has been on a 2 year life cycle where anything beyond 2 years is a bonus. That makes a high end Iphone (Plus model with 256Gb) at a cost of $500/year equivalent to buying a low end Windows laptop every year.
Just as laptops have become low end commodities and therefor Macs are marketed to an increasingly ever shrinking high-end audience, the IPhone may be headed in the same direction. While I am not suggesting that Apple should be marketing to the low-end budget market, I think it unwise to limit themselves to only the high-end pros as it is doing with its Macs...
Iphones have a quite high resale value after 2 years that reduces their actual long term cost to often a lower one than even a mid range Android.
The less battery life trope is false, the Iphone except for the 6s (which got the taptic engine and significantly less internal space), usually has gotten more battery life for the same exact same use case.
What has changed though is that intensity and breadth of of use has increased A LOT over the last 9 years. People use their phones for a hell a lot of more things than before and for longer too. So, if you continue doing the same thing as 3 years back you get the same battery life, but you're not so the perceived battery life may have diminished.
Repairability has decreased but most Iphones aren't repaired anyway. Got about 20+ in extended family over the last 9.5 years and none has needed to be repaired. Including Ipads, those 7-8 individuals have had 30 devices that continued to be used, some for as much as 7 years (like the 3GS I still plug on my stereo) or the Ipad 2 given to one of my daughters.
I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle, considering the resales price of two years phone that seems like a totally made up stat.
1) Good resale value after two years? ROFL... 2) No less battery life? Only if (as you did) you compare new phones with sucky battery life to older phones with sucky battery life. The fact is, and what I pointed out, is that in their race to thinnes Apple cannot put in a larger battery -- so battery life both between charges and between batteries is less than it could be. 3) Most phones aren't repaired. ROFL.... 4) "I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle" -- I got it from virtually every carrier contract for the last ten years as well as Apple's own trade-in programs. They're all 2 years or less. Actually, except the newer agreements where you buy your phone independently of carrier's data plan, most carriers bury the cost of the phone in with the data plan so, at the end of two years, if you just keep paying for a new phone whether you get one or not.
iphone resale values are indeed good. try getting any money out of a plastic nokia or blackberry.
iphones have indeed deed gotten bigger batteries and better battery life over the years, despite getting thinner. this is fact.
Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.
Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.
Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit.
There's more to it than the actual test. For example, let's say two companies are testing water resistance of their phones. To make numbering simple, let's say a device has to score over 50 to attain an IP68 rating and over 40 to get an IP67 rating. Company A and B both test 100 phones and get results from 55-75. Since all 100 devices were over 50 Company B proclaims them to be sufficiently water resistant to get the IP68 rating.
However, company A is concerned about wear & tear having an effect on water resistance. So they simulate one year of use and retest those same 100 phones. Now the scores have dropped and range from 45-60. Many pass the required score of 50 to get IP68, but some don't. Company A decides to play it safe and assigns an IP67 rating.
Which of these companies do you think is Apple and which is Samsung?
Informative and good to know, first time I'd seen Apple's test procedures detailed. Where did you find it?
I never said these are Apples procedures.
Oh, sorry then. The way you had written the post implied it was, or at least Apple and Samsung's testing procedures were factually different. They could be of course, or perhaps both use the same general and Apple is just more conservative with the results. A company I regularly deal with, 3M, tends to under-promise and over-deliver which we know Apple will sometimes do.
As I've brought up before, these ratings are not all done in the same way. IP68 is a self defined rating. It really means very little. So while IP67 means 1 meter for one half hour, IP68 just means greater than one meter, for whatever time the manufacturer chooses to use. In addition, most of the IP ratings have agreed upon testing methodologies, the testing for IP68 is also manufacturer defined.
i would like to point out that for "diving" watches, a category that itself is manufacturer self defined, pressure testing doesn't even need to be done in a hydrostatic vessel. Most manufacturers do this testing in a pneumatic (air) vessel. Now, many may think that this doesn't matter, but it does. Air is highly compressible, whereas water is not. Everyone knows this from their high school, and even middle school, science courses.
the result is that water and air react very differently under pressure. High pressure air is compressed, whereas water tries to push its way into the seals with vastly greater force.
so how are IP68 devices tested? Water, or air? IP 67 testing requires water.
Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.
Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.
Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit.
There's more to it than the actual test. For example, let's say two companies are testing water resistance of their phones. To make numbering simple, let's say a device has to score over 50 to attain an IP68 rating and over 40 to get an IP67 rating. Company A and B both test 100 phones and get results from 55-75. Since all 100 devices were over 50 Company B proclaims them to be sufficiently water resistant to get the IP68 rating.
However, company A is concerned about wear & tear having an effect on water resistance. So they simulate one year of use and retest those same 100 phones. Now the scores have dropped and range from 45-60. Many pass the required score of 50 to get IP68, but some don't. Company A decides to play it safe and assigns an IP67 rating.
Which of these companies do you think is Apple and which is Samsung?
Informative and good to know, first time I'd seen Apple's test procedures detailed. Where did you find it?
I never said these are Apples procedures.
Oh, sorry then. The way you had written the post implied it was, or at least Apple and Samsung's testing procedures were factually different. They could be of course, or perhaps both use the same general and Apple is just more conservative with the results. A company I regularly deal with, 3M, tends to under-promise and over-deliver which we know Apple will sometimes do.
As I've brought up before, these ratings are not all done in the same way. IP68 is a self defined rating. It really means very little. So while IP67 means 1 meter for one half hour, IP68 just means greater than one meter, for whatever time the manufacturer chooses to use. In addition, most of the IP ratings have agreed upon testing methodologies, the testing for IP68 is also manufacturer defined.
i would like to point out that for "diving" watches, a category that itself is manufacturer self defined, pressure testing doesn't even need to be done in a hydrostatic vessel. Most manufacturers do this testing in a pneumatic (air) vessel. Now, many may think that this doesn't matter, but it does. Air is highly compressible, whereas water is not. Everyone knows this from their high school, and even middle school, science courses.
the result is that water and air react very differently under pressure. High pressure air is compressed, whereas water tries to push its way into the seals with vastly greater force.
so how are IP68 devices tested? Water, or air? IP 67 testing requires water.
Yup, I gave your original mention a "Like" a few days ago. I've long been familiar with IP ratings via gps forums, but never paid attention to what IP68 actually meant until you brought it to our attention. Thanks!
There is really no such thing as a waterproof product, no matter what any manufacturer states. In fact, the US government doesn't even allow a company to state their product is waterproof under most circumstances.
so watches are rated to be water resistant down to a certain number of meters, or pressure levels.
back when I was diving, I had an Omega Oceanmaster dive Watch rated to 1,200 meters. But even that wasn't certified to be waterproof, and if you did get water inside, unless it could be proven that the sealing was actually defective, you paid for the (expensive) repair, even under warrantee.
i strongly dislike writers, or even posters, referring to something as waterproof. Unless it's a solid block of something that water doesn't corrode, it ain't waterproof!
Well, there is also the fact that even if they could say it's manufactured to be waterproof when you receive it, it would likely degrade at an unknown rate due to use. So, they could only really certify something waterproof for the first time you actually use it in an absolute sense even if engineered like a tank (unless dropping it in the Mariana Trench ;-).
If you overengineer a product for its condition of actual use, even this gradual slippage in performance means that it would likely be 99.9% of devices for a year that do not fail while used regularly in water. A few though could degrade a bit faster due to variance in manufacturing and use and fail even within those environmental parameters.
Many years ago, when I was actually young, and I worked for a short while for a particular pro photo lab, I was designing, and building, some photo apparatus for the company, and eventually, for public sale.
when Jerry, the owner, came over when I was installing the external portion of the equipment, he commented that I built it as though it was going to Mars. My response was that if I didn't built it to go to Mars, it wouldn't last very long on Earth.
my Omega Oceanmaster diving watch, though stated to be for 1,200 meters, as I mentioned earlier, wasn't warranteed for use in water! Imagine that, a $5,000 diving watch not warranted for use in water. But that's not uncommon. Water is very devious. It gets into things that are supposed to be waterproof, such as military grade products such as submarines, which constantly have pumps working. Nothing is perfect.
Just keep in mind that, generally speaking, the more water resistant you make something the fewer holes (ports) it has to have to achieve that water resistance. In my opinion Apple is heading for a completely sealed device with no ports, no physical buttons, and completely wireless.
Agree! Totally! Thinner, lighter, Increased integration with WirelessWhatever...
The tradeoffs are: 1) Less battery life (both between charges and between batteries) 2) Less repairability as it becomes an increasingly sealed, single unit
Since its inception, the IPhone has been on a 2 year life cycle where anything beyond 2 years is a bonus. That makes a high end Iphone (Plus model with 256Gb) at a cost of $500/year equivalent to buying a low end Windows laptop every year.
Just as laptops have become low end commodities and therefor Macs are marketed to an increasingly ever shrinking high-end audience, the IPhone may be headed in the same direction. While I am not suggesting that Apple should be marketing to the low-end budget market, I think it unwise to limit themselves to only the high-end pros as it is doing with its Macs...
Iphones have a quite high resale value after 2 years that reduces their actual long term cost to often a lower one than even a mid range Android.
The less battery life trope is false, the Iphone except for the 6s (which got the taptic engine and significantly less internal space), usually has gotten more battery life for the same exact same use case.
What has changed though is that intensity and breadth of of use has increased A LOT over the last 9 years. People use their phones for a hell a lot of more things than before and for longer too. So, if you continue doing the same thing as 3 years back you get the same battery life, but you're not so the perceived battery life may have diminished.
Repairability has decreased but most Iphones aren't repaired anyway. Got about 20+ in extended family over the last 9.5 years and none has needed to be repaired. Including Ipads, those 7-8 individuals have had 30 devices that continued to be used, some for as much as 7 years (like the 3GS I still plug on my stereo) or the Ipad 2 given to one of my daughters.
I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle, considering the resales price of two years phone that seems like a totally made up stat.
1) Good resale value after two years? ROFL... 2) No less battery life? Only if (as you did) you compare new phones with sucky battery life to older phones with sucky battery life. The fact is, and what I pointed out, is that in their race to thinnes Apple cannot put in a larger battery -- so battery life both between charges and between batteries is less than it could be. 3) Most phones aren't repaired. ROFL.... 4) "I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle" -- I got it from virtually every carrier contract for the last ten years as well as Apple's own trade-in programs. They're all 2 years or less. Actually, except the newer agreements where you buy your phone independently of carrier's data plan, most carriers bury the cost of the phone in with the data plan so, at the end of two years, if you just keep paying for a new phone whether you get one or not.
iphone resale values are indeed good. try getting any money out of a plastic nokia or blackberry.
iphones have indeed deed gotten bigger batteries and better battery life over the years, despite getting thinner. this is fact.
That is true. But comparing something that sucks to something that REALLY sucks, and then using that comparison to suggest that it doesn't really suck is a false equivalency. , BTW, resale on Iphones is much better for their low-end phones versus their high end phones. Essentially, after 2 years, you get about 10 cents on the dollar for every $100 add-on (such as adding memory) you spend on a new phone. Check out "BuyBack's ad: Iphone 6 (16, 64, 128): $180, $182, $216 IPhone6+(16, 64, 128): $191, $211, $216
Between the lowest and the highest level there was a $300 price difference. But, 2 years later that difference drops to $36. And, notice that there is NO difference between an Iphone 6 and 6+ at the 128Gb level.
Comments
Thinner, lighter, Increased integration with WirelessWhatever...
The tradeoffs are:
1) Less battery life (both between charges and between batteries)
2) Less repairability as it becomes an increasingly sealed, single unit
Since its inception, the IPhone has been on a 2 year life cycle where anything beyond 2 years is a bonus. That makes a high end Iphone (Plus model with 256Gb) at a cost of $500/year equivalent to buying a low end Windows laptop every year.
Just as laptops have become low end commodities and therefor Macs are marketed to an increasingly ever shrinking high-end audience, the IPhone may be headed in the same direction. While I am not suggesting that Apple should be marketing to the low-end budget market, I think it unwise to limit themselves to only the high-end pros as it is doing with its Macs...
The less battery life trope is false, the Iphone except for the 6s (which got the taptic engine and significantly less internal space), usually has gotten more battery life for the same exact same use case.
What has changed though is that intensity and breadth of of use has increased A LOT over the last 9 years. People use their phones for a hell a lot of more things than before and for longer too. So, if you continue doing the same thing as 3 years back you get the same battery life, but you're not so the perceived battery life may have diminished.
Repairability has decreased but most Iphones aren't repaired anyway. Got about 20+ in extended family over the last 9.5 years and none has needed to be repaired.
Including Ipads, those 7-8 individuals have had 30 devices that continued to be used, some for as much as 7 years (like the 3GS I still plug on my stereo) or the Ipad 2 given to one of my daughters.
I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle, considering the resales price of two years phone that seems like a totally made up stat.
I never said these are Apples procedures. I'm highlighting that water resistance ratings are just simple tests that don't take into account time or wear/tear. For example, nothing in the IP rating states a device must retain the same water resistance for, say, 1 year or 1,000 hours of actual use. Or 50,000 presses of a button.
Apple devices have been tested and found to significantly exceed their water resistance ratings. Yet Apple still puts a lower rating on the devices it sells. One possible reason for this is what I mentioned - that Apple does tests on devices under various conditions (including simulated wear & tear). So an iPhone rated at IP67 would pass an IP68 test when new, but after a year would still pass IP67. Since people are always testing water resistance on brand-new devices, it makes sense they would score better than used devices.
Samsung, OTOH, has had new devices that don't even meet their rating. Clearly they aren't being as stringent in their testing methods as Apple even though they both advertise the same rating.
2) No less battery life? Only if (as you did) you compare new phones with sucky battery life to older phones with sucky battery life. The fact is, and what I pointed out, is that in their race to thinnes Apple cannot put in a larger battery -- so battery life both between charges and between batteries is less than it could be.
3) Most phones aren't repaired. ROFL....
4) "I don't where the hell you got this info that the Iphone had a 2 year cycle" -- I got it from virtually every carrier contract for the last ten years as well as Apple's own trade-in programs. They're all 2 years or less. Actually, except the newer agreements where you buy your phone independently of carrier's data plan, most carriers bury the cost of the phone in with the data plan so, at the end of two years, if you just keep paying for a new phone whether you get one or not.
Sammual-James McLoughlin
Palmaddict - how people use their mobile devices.
http://www.palmaddicts.com
iphones have indeed deed gotten bigger batteries and better battery life over the years, despite getting thinner. this is fact.
i would like to point out that for "diving" watches, a category that itself is manufacturer self defined, pressure testing doesn't even need to be done in a hydrostatic vessel. Most manufacturers do this testing in a pneumatic (air) vessel. Now, many may think that this doesn't matter, but it does. Air is highly compressible, whereas water is not. Everyone knows this from their high school, and even middle school, science courses.
the result is that water and air react very differently under pressure. High pressure air is compressed, whereas water tries to push its way into the seals with vastly greater force.
so how are IP68 devices tested? Water, or air? IP 67 testing requires water.
when Jerry, the owner, came over when I was installing the external portion of the equipment, he commented that I built it as though it was going to Mars. My response was that if I didn't built it to go to Mars, it wouldn't last very long on Earth.
my Omega Oceanmaster diving watch, though stated to be for 1,200 meters, as I mentioned earlier, wasn't warranteed for use in water! Imagine that, a $5,000 diving watch not warranted for use in water. But that's not uncommon. Water is very devious. It gets into things that are supposed to be waterproof, such as military grade products such as submarines, which constantly have pumps working. Nothing is perfect.
But comparing something that sucks to something that REALLY sucks, and then using that comparison to suggest that it doesn't really suck is a false equivalency.
,
BTW, resale on Iphones is much better for their low-end phones versus their high end phones. Essentially, after 2 years, you get about 10 cents on the dollar for every $100 add-on (such as adding memory) you spend on a new phone. Check out "BuyBack's ad:
Iphone 6 (16, 64, 128): $180, $182, $216
IPhone6+(16, 64, 128): $191, $211, $216
Between the lowest and the highest level there was a $300 price difference. But, 2 years later that difference drops to $36. And, notice that there is NO difference between an Iphone 6 and 6+ at the 128Gb level.