Samsung design chief talks plastic and software, says future is in devices with 'souls'

15681011

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 219
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    Also notice that DaHarder's MO as of late seems to be "drive by" comments.



     


    I preferred his drive by thumbs-ups.

  • Reply 142 of 219


    God help... the presentation was meant to say Seoul... you know where the vendor supplies most of the internal components of some peeps unbeatable product and is shipped for assembly in communist China? 

  • Reply 143 of 219
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member

    Notice how DaHarder did not mention the recyclable aspect of the 10s of millions of the "more superior" Samsung polycarbonate (plastic) devices. When a company sells a respectable amount of devices, the recyclability should be a major consideration of the overall design process.

    Also notice that DaHarder's MO as of late seems to be "drive by" comments. One and done.

    If Apple was selling a plastic device and Samsung was selling an aluminium device I think it's likely he would be. It's almost as if being objective isn't his objective.
  • Reply 144 of 219

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    If you ignore the "filler" comments that don't contribute much, I find the signal to noise ratio at Mac Rumours to be one intelligent adult (probably one of the few females), to roughly every 30 yahoos.  I would put AppleInsider at more like a 1:5 ratio.  My rule is that once this ratio goes past 1:10 or so I'm wasting my time and it's time to move on.  Sadly there are few places to "move on" to nowadays.    



     


    I tend to agree with you on signal-to-noise ratios. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it's a good way to put it. I stopped visiting MacRumors because of high amount of useless comments. My "ignore" list was a lot higher there too. 


     


    I do enjoy reading well written articles that report on the state of things in the Android, Windows, and BlackBerry worlds because I can count on some of the people in the comment section to help correlate that to Apple's products. So, unlike some of the commentors, I am not disturbed by AI including such stories in the mix. Apple certainly does not exist in a market vacuum. 

  • Reply 145 of 219
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    Notice how DaHarder did not mention the recyclable aspect of the 10s of millions of the "more superior" Samsung polycarbonate (plastic) devices. When a company sells a respectable amount of devices, the recyclability should be a major consideration of the overall design process.

    What's the point? Polycarbonate can be recycled.
    http://www.recycledplastic.com/resource/plastic/polycarbonate-pc/
  • Reply 146 of 219
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    What's the point? Polycarbonate can be recycled.

    http://www.recycledplastic.com/resource/plastic/polycarbonate-pc/


    Plastics and their traits is one area that I have near 100% trust in what you have to say about it.

  • Reply 147 of 219
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    What's the point? Polycarbonate can be recycled.
    http://www.recycledplastic.com/resource/plastic/polycarbonate-pc/

    It's all carbon, right? But what is the cost for recycling? Typically when I see something is made from recycled plastic it's only a small portion. Why is that? Glass and metal seems to be much better product for recycling than plastics in their various molecular makeups.

    And shouldn't we look at the cost in both expense and green house gases that is need to first make or obtain the pure material that is in question? I would think metals are notoriously high for their initial cost.

    This is all beyond my purview; I'm just spitballing.
  • Reply 148 of 219

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    It is extremely unlikely that you're going to accidentally apply enough force to bend an iPhone.


    Apple does not use soft aluminum for its cases. In fact it's a very rigid block of aluminum alloy that is then routed out, not extruded or formed. The thinner the device the more the need for a rigid construction. It is the same reason that MBP and MBA are made the same way and out of the same materials as the iPhone, iPad and iPods. A chassis for the electronics need to not torque or deform to insure reliable operation of the device, and that's the thinking behind Apple's use of Aluminum and interest in Liquid Metal. 


     


    Liquid Metal may allow Apple to release products with a more organic shape if they wish, however then that becomes a design decision and not a material limitation.

  • Reply 149 of 219
    abobrekabobrek Posts: 31member
    I see things like this, regardless of what Samsung says, they are putting out a very inferior product compared to Apple. The general public looks at things from a "more bang for the buck" point of view. I bet there will be alot of, "What is the difference between the S3 and S4?" and then people realizing that paying more for the ability to hover their fingers over the screen or a few more pixels packed into a screen is ridiculous. Samsung screwed themselves by what they have done with the S4. They had Apple on it's knees and could have taken the cake if they produced a superior product to the iPhone. Let's all face it, the iPhone is like a Ferrari, finely crafted, aesthetically pleasing, and lasts a long time. Samsung products are like a Kia or Toyota....not that they are a bad car but, they aren't a Ferrari.
  • Reply 150 of 219
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    I feel that reports serve to bring to the attention of moderators posts that may violate rules or decency. We are neither compelled to nor do we act on every report we see. I think they work well in that regard; the only problem as of late is people NOT reporting things that should have been. 


    ...



     


    When I said it was foolish to base things on complaints, I meant like in the case of an argument on a forum that goes back and forth and gets heated and it gets personal etc. and yet no one complains and instead simply hurls epithets back the other way.  Then one person complains about the "personal attacks" (when in fact *everyone* is being "personal"), the moderator looks at the complaint and finds it valid, (why wouldn't they since "personal attacks" are a violation), and the person complained about gets sanctioned.  


     


    All the other players, including the one who complained, get off scott free since the moderator hasn't got the time to read every post and there's no requirement to assess all the parties in question anyway.  "Complaints" are often used as weapons in that way. 


     


    If moderation only deals with complaints, then it's unfair by definition in that it isn't looking at all the posts, just the few that are complained about.  On the other hand, it's impossible to look at all the posts, so it's understandable why the system is that way. Personally, I'd rather see a system based on the overall profile or "usefulness" of the individual over time, not infraction based, or even rule based at all.  "Personal attacks" in particular are to a large degree in the mind of the person attacked.  


     


    I know I've received infractions for personal attacks even when I've spent the extra time to analyse every single word I've said to make sure that it *wasn't* a personal attack.  I still got the infraction however, because the person in question "felt" aggrieved or because the moderator was unable to parse my statements properly. It's also trivially easy to (technically) not be attacking a person but still make statements that make said person look like a complete fool, so if there is a way for smart people who are very familiar with the English language to essentially insult someone and get away with it, it's a bit biased to say that another person less capable with English perhaps should be censured for the occasional insult.  


     


    I think the whole ad hominem attack rule is ridiculous in that sense.  It's based on the rules of formal English debate that really don't apply in a public forum.  At the very least, the rule is too hastily and too broadly applied.  If two people are having a debate on issues and one momentarily stops and calls the other one a name, that isn't really an "ad hominem" attack, it's a slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment.  Someone who constantly attacks the person instead of the topic is a different thing altogether.  


     


    I just think people should have thicker skins in general.  The internet is about as public as "public" gets, yet everyone seems to expect formal British English rules of debate to apply as if society in general were as civil as a private tea party.  

  • Reply 151 of 219
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,381member


    I love it. Devices with "souls". Well done Samsung. 


     


    There isn't a single statement in that drivel that isn't just platonic bullshit.  


     


    Samsung literally hasn't done a single thing to move forward the smartphone or tablet space, either through hardware or software, besides making giant phones. Build quality is cheap and shitty plastic, breaking no new ground whatsoever, and their skins and software is even worse. Anything successful they've done is either a near identical ripoff, or a slight deviation. All they're left with is buzzwords like "nature" and "souls" to obscure their countless shameless ripoffs and the fact that they do not posess a single original thought. 

  • Reply 152 of 219
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    When I said it was foolish to base things on complaints, I meant like in the case of an argument on a forum that goes back and forth and gets heated and it gets personal etc. and yet no one complains and instead simply hurls epithets back the other way.  Then one person complains about the "personal attacks" (when in fact *everyone* is being "personal"), the moderator looks at the complaint and finds it valid, (why wouldn't they since "personal attacks" are a violation), and the person complained about gets sanctioned.  


     


    All the other players, including the one who complained, get off scott free since the moderator hasn't got the time to read every post and there's no requirement to assess all the parties in question anyway.  "Complaints" are often used as weapons in that way. 


     


    If moderation only deals with complaints, then it's unfair by definition in that it isn't looking at all the posts, just the few that are complained about.  On the other hand, it's impossible to look at all the posts, so it's understandable why the system is that way. Personally, I'd rather see a system based on the overall profile or "usefulness" of the individual over time, not infraction based, or even rule based at all.  "Personal attacks" in particular are to a large degree in the mind of the person attacked.  


     


    I know I've received infractions for personal attacks even when I've spent the extra time to analyse every single word I've said to make sure that it *wasn't* a personal attack.  I still got the infraction however, because the person in question "felt" aggrieved or because the moderator was unable to parse my statements properly. It's also trivially easy to (technically) not be attacking a person but still make statements that make said person look like a complete fool, so if there is a way for smart people who are very familiar with the English language to essentially insult someone and get away with it, it's a bit biased to say that another person less capable with English perhaps should be censured for the occasional insult.  


     


    I think the whole ad hominem attack rule is ridiculous in that sense.  It's based on the rules of formal English debate that really don't apply in a public forum.  At the very least, the rule is too hastily and too broadly applied.  If two people are having a debate on issues and one momentarily stops and calls the other one a name, that isn't really an "ad hominem" attack, it's a slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment.  Someone who constantly attacks the person instead of the topic is a different thing altogether.  


     


    I just think people should have thicker skins in general.  The internet is about as public as "public" gets, yet everyone seems to expect formal British English rules of debate to apply as if society in general were as civil as a private tea party.  



    I disagree. I think it's completely possible to fairly police the forum and keep the discussions civil. There's absolutely no gain from name-calling, personal accusations and profanity. I've no idea why you think threads turning into a street fight are OK because it reflects society and the players should just get thicker skins. It might be a reflection of your neighborhood. It's doesn't apply to mine, and I'm glad it doesn't. 


     


    Do you honestly believe the discussions benefit from ad-homs more than being civil to each other so that the intended recipient may actually be open to what you have to say rather than formulating a way to get back at what you just called him? I know you're familiar with the old flies and honey saying. It still applies. I can nearly guarantee that if another member here goes on a personal attack against you, whatever else they have to say is going to get ignored even if it's pertinent. You won't care other than to find something said in it you can use for a counter-attack. It happens every day here, over and over. Good suggestions and fair comments/opinions lost in a ocean of epithats, arrogance, pomposity and general attacks on the person rather than the ideas they posted.


     


    If you want to take back the forums I made suggestions in an earlier post. They work.


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156513/samsung-design-chief-talks-plastic-and-software-says-future-is-in-devices-with-souls/80#post_2295299


     


    It will take some solid commitment from the admin and mods but the benefits will be huge. The worst offenders will find other places to infect while new members who appreciate a site for civil discussion will take their places many times over. Right now I don't know of another high-profile tech forum where your mother could feel comfortable visiting with a question, comment or opinion. AI could host that forum and it would be unique.


     


    Wouldn't it be great if people actually heard what you had to say and found it worth consideration instead of encountering 10 posts of  juvenile and trollish ad-homs and accusations with the occasional relevant and thoughtful post hidden in the midst of them?  Of course. Advocating loosening the rules to make profanity, ad-homs and generally egregious behavior more acceptable will give you even more of what you're trying to avoid: Worse "trolls" on both sides than you have now. and every man for himself.

  • Reply 153 of 219
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    abobrek wrote: »
    Samsung screwed themselves by what they have done with the S4. They had Apple on it's knees and could have taken the cake if they produced a superior product to the iPhone. Let's all face it, the iPhone is like a Ferrari, finely crafted, aesthetically pleasing, and lasts a long time. Samsung products are like a Kia or Toyota....not that they are a bad car but, they aren't a Ferrari.

    How did Sammy have Apple on its knees? The 5 AND 4 outsold the GS3. In addition, Apple did have 70% of the mobile profits.
  • Reply 154 of 219
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It's all carbon, right? But what is the cost for recycling? Typically when I see something is made from recycled plastic it's only a small portion. Why is that? Glass and metal seems to be much better product for recycling than plastics in their various molecular makeups.

    And shouldn't we look at the cost in both expense and green house gases that is need to first make or obtain the pure material that is in question? I would think metals are notoriously high for their initial cost.

    This is all beyond my purview; I'm just spitballing.

    Read the link I provided. There's apparently enough recycling of polycarbonate going on that it's in high demand in China.

    Now, given the environmental rules there (or lack thereof), ti's unlikely that they're buying it for environmental reasons, so it must be profitable.
  • Reply 155 of 219
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Read the link I provided. There's apparently enough recycling of polycarbonate going on that it's in high demand in China.

    Now, given the environmental rules there (or lack thereof), ti's unlikely that they're buying it for environmental reasons, so it must be profitable.

    I did read it, hence my questions. Your comment about environmental reasons and then stating it must be profitable perplexes me. I'm under the assumption that China still has very lax environmental laws compared to other industrialized nations. So how do plastics stand up to other materials like metals and glass when it comes to repeated reusability for the aforementioned costs?
  • Reply 156 of 219
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    So aluminum isn't bendable?


     


    Yes, there is a large prevalance of ignorance on this forum and very little Manufacturing Engineering in their backgrounds.

  • Reply 157 of 219
    Thats why Samsung will fail.Apple has soul and LOVE!
  • Reply 158 of 219
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    What's the point? Polycarbonate can be recycled.

    http://www.recycledplastic.com/resource/plastic/polycarbonate-pc/


     


    Polycarbonate BPAs using CO2 as a feedstock instead of petroleum reduces the overall carbon footprint, but until that's fully enforced a lot of manufacturing will just use petroleum based polymers.


     


    Solid Report on it: http://chemical.ihs.com/PEP/Public/Reports/Phase_2012/RP285/RP285_toc.pdf


     


    To get the whole report it costs money: http://www.ihs.com/products/chemical/technology/pep/index.aspx

  • Reply 159 of 219
    notscottnotscott Posts: 247member


    It was a spoken presentation, right? Not written?


     


    Just wondering if he was misunderstood or misheard.


     


    Could have just as easily said he wanted to design a device with asshole.

  • Reply 160 of 219


    I doubt plastic can have soul, but I know rubber soul is well known.

Sign In or Register to comment.