Quote... "On the bright side, we have an opportunity to nail down this issue and fix it before selling the phones to a massive audience, so they won't have same complaints," an anonymous Samsung source toldReuters.
“We recently unveiled a completely new mobile category”
Boy, they sure do want people to see them as something other than a copycat. Being “first!” is strangely important to them, more important than being better.
I don't think it was a bad idea to send out a bunch of device to testers who would put it through real world paces and then adjust based on the feedback (keep in mind some of these "major" issues were self-inflicted) - granted the issues were probably more than expected but they'll be able to address them before going full to market. We live in a society now were everyone feels like they have to bash and be overtly negative in their criticisms. Take it for what it is, a nice twist on existing technology that once perfected will be pretty cool.
They aren't testers. They are reviewers.
not much difference between the two - in order to review it you have to do some level of testing on it in the real world, if not, then what are you reviewing so the comment still holds
There is a difference. An external reviewer should get a final iteration of a product. Reviewers don't review movies prior to the final edit. Same should apply to physical goods. If you rely on external reviewers for your testing, it means you have no design concept.
I have to admit that I was looking forward to feeling some schadenfreude as I watched Samsung ship what is clearly a prototype, that has questionable utility (at least in the immediate future). I find it odd that they would effectively send these units to reviewers and hope for the best. I understand that the race to be first has some strong marketing power (just look at 5G), but is it really worth the negative impact inflicted on your most loyal user base (the early adopters)? Say what you want about Apple, but they would only ship a finished product.
It seems like a classic case of marketing overruling engineering.
Or the classic case of an engineering mind over-estimating a layman mind. It's very common for an "educated" person to not understand the level of which their audience might not be knowledgable and overlook certain critical details.
What do you mean? You can’t possibly be blaming the user for this, right?
Overlook certain details...like expecting it to not break?
I don't think it was a bad idea to send out a bunch of device to testers who would put it through real world paces and then adjust based on the feedback (keep in mind some of these "major" issues were self-inflicted) - granted the issues were probably more than expected but they'll be able to address them before going full to market. We live in a society now were everyone feels like they have to bash and be overtly negative in their criticisms. Take it for what it is, a nice twist on existing technology that once perfected will be pretty cool.
They aren't testers. They are reviewers.
not much difference between the two - in order to review it you have to do some level of testing on it in the real world, if not, then what are you reviewing so the comment still holds
Nonsense. Yes, a reviewer “tests” a product in the act of reviewing it. But they are not “testers” in the QA context of the word. By the time the product gets to a media reviewer, the product is complete and ready for the mass market. That’s what the reviews are for. What you’re referring to is an internal testing phase for an unfinished product.
Incredible that these people have to sense of shame whatsoever with how they're making utter asses of themselves.
I had always thought that "not losing face" was an important cultural attribute to consider in how decisions are made in some of the countries/cultures of the Far East.
There’s two aspects. Face saving and honor. They are often in conflict. In today’s high-pressure world of product development and marketing I’m afraid face-saving, even if it requires bold-faced lying, deception or lacking any sense of shame wins out.
Hmm, even after getting the technical issues resolved, Samsung will still face a huge uphill battle. I’m betting the reviewers next time will be a bit more critical of the product. After experiencing the fits and half starts of trying to just get the thing to a state ready to release, I’m betting they’ll begin to wonder what’s the point of all this technical complexity. I’ve already heard one or two on Bloomberg’s Tech Talk with Emily Chang mention how for the price of a Fold you can have an iPhone, iPad mini and Apple Watch, with money left over. I’m betting we’ll hear reviewers finally speak to the fundamental issues of this entire category, which I outlined here in AI some months ago... (reposted below):
Samsung Fold
Fat Phone, Square Tablet
Does anyone remember 2014’s Blackberry Passport. It wasn’t lauded for its square display; it was mocked. and no other manufacturer until now has released anything of significance with a square aspect ratio. This issue alone is likely what keeps Apple at the drawing board, if they haven’t already walked away from the entire concept. How do you combine the 9:16 aspect ratio of a smartphone, which in portrait offers a natural document scrolling solution and in landscape offers an ideal video viewing solution, with a tablet’s aspect ratio (Apple’s are 4:3 in the more commonly held landscape orientation).
Square is just not a very useful aspect ratio. It’s not great for documents; if you size to fit in the horizontal dimension, then you don’t get very much of the document shown at-a-time in the vertical dimension. Try this on an iPad by holding it in portrait in a webpage and then tapping the browser bar to bring up the keyboard. What’s shown of the webpage is what a square display presents all the time, without even a keyboard being displayed. Then imagine a keyboard intruding into that space. At least the Blackberry had a separate physical keyboard. Square also doesn’t offer anything different when rotating to landscape. So watching videos or working a spreadsheet aren’t going to be very satisfying experiences on such a screen.
The Samsung Fold is yet another refrigerator combined with a toaster. One function defeats the other. The toaster warms the device, which as a fridge is fighting to keep food cold. The Fold as a tablet defeats the pocketability of a smartphone while adding the very real potential of a vector for mechanical failure, and a poor tablet experience. And as other commenters have speculated, it’s likely the finger feel on the tablet display, due to it likely being plastic-covered and not glass, will provide another point of user experience compromise and potential failure.
I have to admit that I was looking forward to feeling some schadenfreude as I watched Samsung ship what is clearly a prototype, that has questionable utility (at least in the immediate future). I find it odd that they would effectively send these units to reviewers and hope for the best. I understand that the race to be first has some strong marketing power (just look at 5G), but is it really worth the negative impact inflicted on your most loyal user base (the early adopters)? Say what you want about Apple, but they would only ship a finished product.
It seems like a classic case of marketing overruling engineering.
Or the classic case of an engineering mind over-estimating a layman mind. It's very common for an "educated" person to not understand the level of which their audience might not be knowledgable and overlook certain critical details.
Anyway, still not getting as much backlash as Apple did cancelling the AirPower - at the very least Apple knows when to say "No" and quit.
What do you mean an example of an engineering mind over-estimating a layman's mind? Are you referring to the reviewers who had problems with the Fold, because I'd say that's a pretty sophisticated audience. If you are selling devices to people pitched above the level of these reviewers, you're not going to be selling very many devices. Or are you referring to the people who thought the Fold was the greatest technical breakthrough since the invention of fire. In that case, you're right.
I would argue that Jobs's greatest accomplishment was getting tech companies to design products more for consumers than for engineers. I wonder at times if part of the Android fanboy resentment of Apple (a resentment that started even before the iPhone or anyone had heard of Android) is because Apple products for the most part are relatively easy to understand, and they don't require a lot of geek skill to navigate.
clawing back? this seems a little bit like click bait
i mean, sure this does not look good, but i see ZERO evidence in this article about samsung clawing back the phones. asking is not clawing, threatening lawsuits- sure.
Samsung Galaxy Fold phones are breaking. Here's why it doesn't matter
Double standard? Naw.
"Samsung, unlike Apple, doesn't need to get it right the first time,"
...quoted source says this, but never explains this. Why does Apple need to get it right the first time, whereas Samsung doesn’t?
Apple needs to get it right the first time in large part because Apple is so dependent on a handful of products, and so if they have a massive problem like this or the Note 7's problems Apple would be in serious trouble. Google can release a deeply defective Pixel or Samsung can have problems like the one with the Fold, and they have enough other products to fall back on that this isn't an issue.
Remember this the next time someone is complaining about how Apple isn't "innovative" enough. Apple can't afford to release what are essentially beta versions of their products.
I have to admit that I was looking forward to feeling some schadenfreude as I watched Samsung ship what is clearly a prototype, that has questionable utility (at least in the immediate future). I find it odd that they would effectively send these units to reviewers and hope for the best. I understand that the race to be first has some strong marketing power (just look at 5G), but is it really worth the negative impact inflicted on your most loyal user base (the early adopters)? Say what you want about Apple, but they would only ship a finished product.
It seems like a classic case of marketing overruling engineering.
Or the classic case of an engineering mind over-estimating a layman mind. It's very common for an "educated" person to not understand the level of which their audience might not be knowledgable and overlook certain critical details.
What do you mean? You can’t possibly be blaming the user for this, right?
I don't think it was a bad idea to send out a bunch of device to testers who would put it through real world paces and then adjust based on the feedback (keep in mind some of these "major" issues were self-inflicted) - granted the issues were probably more than expected but they'll be able to address them before going full to market. We live in a society now were everyone feels like they have to bash and be overtly negative in their criticisms. Take it for what it is, a nice twist on existing technology that once perfected will be pretty cool.
I'm not convinced the concept is a good one even if perfected. It's a whole different thing if you had a pad like this but for a phone, it is an extra step to open it then exactly how do you hold it as you cycle along, etc.? The old flip phone answered both issues as it dropped down with a flick and holding didn't alter. It's not the same with a 'widening' device.
The concept is not that of a flip phone. To use a flip phone you had to open it. That's why the flip was necessarily an easy, quick action.
A folding phone doesn't need to be opened to use it. The only time you would unfold it would be to enlarge the screen area. Doubling the screen area brings obvious advantages and once users try the concept they will have regrets going back to a regular screen. Doing the things we do today on multiple 'small' screens (with everything that entails) become much easier and when you don't need that extra space you can literally fold it away.
The problem obviously isn't the concept but the implementation (both in hardware and software). Price will be an impediment for most of us but there are more than enough people out there to provide a viable market for these devices, but logically the hardware has to stand up to daily wear and tear.
This recall is obviously a massive PR disaster but if it leads to improvements and a better product it's a clear plus and correcting these issues before they reach the end user is yet another plus.
Put into perspective, this is simply s huge embarrassment at the moment which I hope can be resolved.
It would have been far, far worse if a fault were to be discovered on a model shipping in the millions (a la Note 7) and require a repair program or a recall.
I give a fair amount of slack to anyone (Apple included) when these things happen and in this manner. Especially when it is a niche product.
Yes, I find it incredible that an (albeit miniscule) amount of faulty phones reached reviewers with issues that clearly should have been discovered at a prototype stage and then require last minute design adjustments but am glad the folding concept is finally here.
Comments
For a $2000.00 gadget? Add an extra LOL for me.
Boy, they sure do want people to see them as something other than a copycat. Being “first!” is strangely important to them, more important than being better.
Overlook certain details...like expecting it to not break?
Nonsense. Yes, a reviewer “tests” a product in the act of reviewing it. But they are not “testers” in the QA context of the word. By the time the product gets to a media reviewer, the product is complete and ready for the mass market. That’s what the reviews are for. What you’re referring to is an internal testing phase for an unfinished product.
...quoted source says this, but never explains this. Why does Apple need to get it right the first time, whereas Samsung doesn’t?
Samsung Fold
Fat Phone, Square Tablet
Does anyone remember 2014’s Blackberry Passport. It wasn’t lauded for its square display; it was mocked. and no other manufacturer until now has released anything of significance with a square aspect ratio. This issue alone is likely what keeps Apple at the drawing board, if they haven’t already walked away from the entire concept. How do you combine the 9:16 aspect ratio of a smartphone, which in portrait offers a natural document scrolling solution and in landscape offers an ideal video viewing solution, with a tablet’s aspect ratio (Apple’s are 4:3 in the more commonly held landscape orientation).
Square is just not a very useful aspect ratio. It’s not great for documents; if you size to fit in the horizontal dimension, then you don’t get very much of the document shown at-a-time in the vertical dimension. Try this on an iPad by holding it in portrait in a webpage and then tapping the browser bar to bring up the keyboard. What’s shown of the webpage is what a square display presents all the time, without even a keyboard being displayed. Then imagine a keyboard intruding into that space. At least the Blackberry had a separate physical keyboard. Square also doesn’t offer anything different when rotating to landscape. So watching videos or working a spreadsheet aren’t going to be very satisfying experiences on such a screen.
The Samsung Fold is yet another refrigerator combined with a toaster. One function defeats the other. The toaster warms the device, which as a fridge is fighting to keep food cold. The Fold as a tablet defeats the pocketability of a smartphone while adding the very real potential of a vector for mechanical failure, and a poor tablet experience. And as other commenters have speculated, it’s likely the finger feel on the tablet display, due to it likely being plastic-covered and not glass, will provide another point of user experience compromise and potential failure.
I would argue that Jobs's greatest accomplishment was getting tech companies to design products more for consumers than for engineers. I wonder at times if part of the Android fanboy resentment of Apple (a resentment that started even before the iPhone or anyone had heard of Android) is because Apple products for the most part are relatively easy to understand, and they don't require a lot of geek skill to navigate.
Remember this the next time someone is complaining about how Apple isn't "innovative" enough. Apple can't afford to release what are essentially beta versions of their products.
A folding phone doesn't need to be opened to use it. The only time you would unfold it would be to enlarge the screen area. Doubling the screen area brings obvious advantages and once users try the concept they will have regrets going back to a regular screen. Doing the things we do today on multiple 'small' screens (with everything that entails) become much easier and when you don't need that extra space you can literally fold it away.
The problem obviously isn't the concept but the implementation (both in hardware and software). Price will be an impediment for most of us but there are more than enough people out there to provide a viable market for these devices, but logically the hardware has to stand up to daily wear and tear.
This recall is obviously a massive PR disaster but if it leads to improvements and a better product it's a clear plus and correcting these issues before they reach the end user is yet another plus.
Put into perspective, this is simply s huge embarrassment at the moment which I hope can be resolved.
It would have been far, far worse if a fault were to be discovered on a model shipping in the millions (a la Note 7) and require a repair program or a recall.
I give a fair amount of slack to anyone (Apple included) when these things happen and in this manner. Especially when it is a niche product.
Yes, I find it incredible that an (albeit miniscule) amount of faulty phones reached reviewers with issues that clearly should have been discovered at a prototype stage and then require last minute design adjustments but am glad the folding concept is finally here.