Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
damn... I'm getting my popcorn ready for this upcoming fiasco.
Obvious obligatory remark: Had Apple been the one to introduce this disaster, there would be armies of ambulance-chasing lawyers filing class-action lawsuits, iHaters and trolls demanding Tim Cook's head on a spike, AAPL would crash and the always-tired "Apple is doomed" moniker would be chanting in the streets.... and yet Samsung gets a free pass, and Samdroid fanboys praise Samsung for "daring to be innovative".
If it's treated as iPhones are YouTubers will be bending it 180° back and forth until it snaps in half in the first few hours of release. Of courser this won't happen as it's not an Apple product.
The review models were defective. AT&T and Best Buy we’re taking preorders.
That means there was probably already a considerable stockpile built and ready to ship. Do you suppose those were scrapped, or were they pried apart to install the corrected screens? If so, will those be sold as new or refurbished? Either way, that cohort of rebuilts will have additional manufacturing variables that could affect the final quality, so it makes a person wonder how all this is going to go.
So Apple gets a media storm, memes, countless hate videos for less than 1% bent iPhones while Samsung gets away with 100% defected bent phones that break?
No. In a word.
Samsung didn't ship any and 100% didn't break. Also, if they are near ready to launch it is probably that the fixes were minor. Probably important but minor.
We'll now have to wait for the new official date.
Still a PR disaster but the phone itself might not be as much of a hardware failure as some thought. When it reaches users, we'll know soon enough.
It's a disaster in every way. But I love that you think it's somehow a good thing that they can't make a decent shipping product. I don't know why Samsung would have a Fanboy - but it's nice to meet you.
Considering you've never even used one, your claim is a bold one.
I prefer to let the device stand or fall on its own merits.
Maybe I'm old fashioned.
Your defense of the yet unreleased Mate X is noted as the subtext of your defense of Samsung's Galaxy Fold.
Sucks that Huawei decided to wait to release their Mate X when they could have pimped Samsung's return to market, given your extensive defense of their "delay".
For the record, the Galaxy Fold was so poorly designed, that people thought they were peeling off a protective cover...and the mechanicals of the hinges were failing virtually overnight.
But true that these were "evaluation" units, not units shipped to customers, as if there is a difference in production.
Kind of adds weight to those other potential reasons mentioned.
And it wasn't a 'defence'. I put some facts on the table and speculated a bit.
I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering more than 3 decades ago, and I work in manufacturing everyday, so when you speak wrt manufacturing or design, I roll my eyes.
Really, this would be a good time to just shut the fuck up and stop "speculating" with your PR skillset.
What are you trying to say?
In the absence of real information all we have left is speculation. Perhaps in your engineering degree world things are different but out in the real world you don't need an engineering degree to speak on the Mate X delay. Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't).
In the absence of that (and that is the case - there is no such reference) there are many reasons (and not mutually exclusive either) that come into play and they include areas that were not even touched on in the news of the Mate X delay and potentially far removed from manufacturing and/or engineering.
Now, I'm lucky because I get to speak to a lot of people from different technical and non technical fields and at a high level. Being able to draw from a wealth of opinion gives me more than enough confidence to speak on many subjects at this level.
Maybe I should roll my eyes too whenever you talk about anything you don't have a degree in. LOL!
Can you shed some light on how to frame your comments? What do you do for a living? I’m always happy to give context to my posts and share that I’m a former golden era dot-com’er and now an enterprise contract developer. How about you? What makes you an expert opinion on chinese knockoffs? What context do we put your bold, ultra-confident comments in?
I am an oldie like you.
No need to frame my comments in any particular way. They stand on their own, just like the comment you are referring to.
The bolded comment followed an 'unless':
"Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't)."
It was bolded because for him to validate his comments something would need to exist from Huawei that pointed to an engineering design problem. No such comments have been made.
Here is part of what was said (from the original CNBC report):
"But the spokesperson confirmed the official launch will take place in September. He said that the company was doing extra testing with mobile carriers around the world and developers to make sure their apps work when the device is fully unfolded"
I see nothing in there that so much as touches on an engineering design problem in the league of the Samsung issues. Do you?
That doesn't mean there aren't issues. Not in the slightest. It means we don't (and can't know) exactly why there was a delay beyond 'extra testing'.
There could be all manner of questions and I took the time to highlight some of them. Drawing on comments by executives and my own speculation based on what I know from all kinds of sources.
As for what I do, most of my work involves 'preparing' people for their work. Often this involves working with them or their teams to present robust arguments and counter arguments in 'debate' situations. It could be to win an EU science grant for a particular project, defending the creation of a gene bank at a regional hospital, politics, education, science etc.
A few years ago my work centred mainly on science, education and data centers. Now there is more of a spread but the work itself is basically getting people ready to debate something and arm them with the tools to reach their goals. 'Communication' is the root of everything. Quite a bit of lunching with people in positions of influence and from high tech spheres (super computing, plastics, telecoms etc). It changes all the time.
I also teach English to people who don't have the means to study for themselves. I've also done Spanish language rock jounalism. I've also worked for the UK government.
What makes me an expert on Chinese telecoms companies? I didn't know I was.
If you are asking what makes me able to comment on Huawei in particular, you already know. I made it clear many times. The same that makes me able to comment on Apple.
So Apple gets a media storm, memes, countless hate videos for less than 1% bent iPhones while Samsung gets away with 100% defected bent phones that break?
No. In a word.
Samsung didn't ship any and 100% didn't break. Also, if they are near ready to launch it is probably that the fixes were minor. Probably important but minor.
We'll now have to wait for the new official date.
Still a PR disaster but the phone itself might not be as much of a hardware failure as some thought. When it reaches users, we'll know soon enough.
It's a disaster in every way. But I love that you think it's somehow a good thing that they can't make a decent shipping product. I don't know why Samsung would have a Fanboy - but it's nice to meet you.
Considering you've never even used one, your claim is a bold one.
I prefer to let the device stand or fall on its own merits.
Maybe I'm old fashioned.
Your defense of the yet unreleased Mate X is noted as the subtext of your defense of Samsung's Galaxy Fold.
Sucks that Huawei decided to wait to release their Mate X when they could have pimped Samsung's return to market, given your extensive defense of their "delay".
For the record, the Galaxy Fold was so poorly designed, that people thought they were peeling off a protective cover...and the mechanicals of the hinges were failing virtually overnight.
But true that these were "evaluation" units, not units shipped to customers, as if there is a difference in production.
Kind of adds weight to those other potential reasons mentioned.
And it wasn't a 'defence'. I put some facts on the table and speculated a bit.
I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering more than 3 decades ago, and I work in manufacturing everyday, so when you speak wrt manufacturing or design, I roll my eyes.
Really, this would be a good time to just shut the fuck up and stop "speculating" with your PR skillset.
What are you trying to say?
In the absence of real information all we have left is speculation. Perhaps in your engineering degree world things are different but out in the real world you don't need an engineering degree to speak on the Mate X delay. Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't).
In the absence of that (and that is the case - there is no such reference) there are many reasons (and not mutually exclusive either) that come into play and they include areas that were not even touched on in the news of the Mate X delay and potentially far removed from manufacturing and/or engineering.
Now, I'm lucky because I get to speak to a lot of people from different technical and non technical fields and at a high level. Being able to draw from a wealth of opinion gives me more than enough confidence to speak on many subjects at this level.
Maybe I should roll my eyes too whenever you talk about anything you don't have a degree in. LOL!
Can you shed some light on how to frame your comments? What do you do for a living? I’m always happy to give context to my posts and share that I’m a former golden era dot-com’er and now an enterprise contract developer. How about you? What makes you an expert opinion on chinese knockoffs? What context do we put your bold, ultra-confident comments in?
I am an oldie like you.
No need to frame my comments in any particular way. They stand on their own, just like the comment you are referring to.
The bolded comment followed an 'unless':
"Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't)."
It was bolded because for him to validate his comments something would need to exist from Huawei that pointed to an engineering design problem. No such comments have been made.
Here is part of what was said (from the original CNBC report):
"But the spokesperson confirmed the official launch will take place in September. He said that the company was doing extra testing with mobile carriers around the world and developers to make sure their apps work when the device is fully unfolded"
I see nothing in there that so much as touches on an engineering design problem in the league of the Samsung issues. Do you?
That doesn't mean there aren't issues. Not in the slightest. It means we don't (and can't know) exactly why there was a delay beyond 'extra testing'.
There could be all manner of questions and I took the time to highlight some of them. Drawing on comments by executives and my own speculation based on what I know from all kinds of sources.
As for what I do, most of my work involves 'preparing' people for their work. Often this involves working with them or their teams to present robust arguments and counter arguments in 'debate' situations. It could be to win an EU science grant for a particular project, defending the creation of a gene bank at a regional hospital, politics, education, science etc.
A few years ago my work centred mainly on science, education and data centers. Now there is more of a spread but the work itself is basically getting people ready to debate something and arm them with the tools to reach their goals. 'Communication' is the root of everything. Quite a bit of lunching with people in positions of influence and from high tech spheres (super computing, plastics, telecoms etc). It changes all the time.
I also teach English to people who don't have the means to study for themselves. I've also done Spanish language rock jounalism. I've also worked for the UK government.
What makes me an expert on Chinese telecoms companies? I didn't know I was.
If you are asking what makes me able to comment on Huawei in particular, you already know. I made it clear many times. The same that makes me able to comment on Apple.
So, PR Spin is just your hobby, and would it be that Huawei, or an entity associated with Huawei, is one of your clients?
I have to note, you are one of the most defensive and confrontational "communicators" that I have come across on AI, with almost zero interest in appreciating or learning why Apple is and has been such a successful company for all of these years.
It's almost as if you shouldn't really be here at all, like you are from an alternative universe.
But true that these were "evaluation" units, not units shipped to customers, as if there is a difference in production.
The units shipped to reviewers should _not_ have been any different from a consumer model. Alpha and Beta test models are expected to be different, but not Review units. How can a reviewer do their job properly if what they receive is different from what consumers will receive?
But true that these were "evaluation" units, not units shipped to customers, as if there is a difference in production.
The units shipped to reviewers should _not_ have been any different from a consumer model. Alpha and Beta test models are expected to be different, but not Review units. How can a reviewer do their job properly if what they receive is different from what consumers will receive?
So Apple gets a media storm, memes, countless hate videos for less than 1% bent iPhones while Samsung gets away with 100% defected bent phones that break?
No. In a word.
Samsung didn't ship any and 100% didn't break. Also, if they are near ready to launch it is probably that the fixes were minor. Probably important but minor.
We'll now have to wait for the new official date.
Still a PR disaster but the phone itself might not be as much of a hardware failure as some thought. When it reaches users, we'll know soon enough.
It's a disaster in every way. But I love that you think it's somehow a good thing that they can't make a decent shipping product. I don't know why Samsung would have a Fanboy - but it's nice to meet you.
Considering you've never even used one, your claim is a bold one.
I prefer to let the device stand or fall on its own merits.
Maybe I'm old fashioned.
Your defense of the yet unreleased Mate X is noted as the subtext of your defense of Samsung's Galaxy Fold.
Sucks that Huawei decided to wait to release their Mate X when they could have pimped Samsung's return to market, given your extensive defense of their "delay".
For the record, the Galaxy Fold was so poorly designed, that people thought they were peeling off a protective cover...and the mechanicals of the hinges were failing virtually overnight.
But true that these were "evaluation" units, not units shipped to customers, as if there is a difference in production.
Kind of adds weight to those other potential reasons mentioned.
And it wasn't a 'defence'. I put some facts on the table and speculated a bit.
I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering more than 3 decades ago, and I work in manufacturing everyday, so when you speak wrt manufacturing or design, I roll my eyes.
Really, this would be a good time to just shut the fuck up and stop "speculating" with your PR skillset.
What are you trying to say?
In the absence of real information all we have left is speculation. Perhaps in your engineering degree world things are different but out in the real world you don't need an engineering degree to speak on the Mate X delay. Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't).
In the absence of that (and that is the case - there is no such reference) there are many reasons (and not mutually exclusive either) that come into play and they include areas that were not even touched on in the news of the Mate X delay and potentially far removed from manufacturing and/or engineering.
Now, I'm lucky because I get to speak to a lot of people from different technical and non technical fields and at a high level. Being able to draw from a wealth of opinion gives me more than enough confidence to speak on many subjects at this level.
Maybe I should roll my eyes too whenever you talk about anything you don't have a degree in. LOL!
Can you shed some light on how to frame your comments? What do you do for a living? I’m always happy to give context to my posts and share that I’m a former golden era dot-com’er and now an enterprise contract developer. How about you? What makes you an expert opinion on chinese knockoffs? What context do we put your bold, ultra-confident comments in?
I am an oldie like you.
No need to frame my comments in any particular way. They stand on their own, just like the comment you are referring to.
The bolded comment followed an 'unless':
"Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't)."
It was bolded because for him to validate his comments something would need to exist from Huawei that pointed to an engineering design problem. No such comments have been made.
Here is part of what was said (from the original CNBC report):
"But the spokesperson confirmed the official launch will take place in September. He said that the company was doing extra testing with mobile carriers around the world and developers to make sure their apps work when the device is fully unfolded"
I see nothing in there that so much as touches on an engineering design problem in the league of the Samsung issues. Do you?
That doesn't mean there aren't issues. Not in the slightest. It means we don't (and can't know) exactly why there was a delay beyond 'extra testing'.
There could be all manner of questions and I took the time to highlight some of them. Drawing on comments by executives and my own speculation based on what I know from all kinds of sources.
As for what I do, most of my work involves 'preparing' people for their work. Often this involves working with them or their teams to present robust arguments and counter arguments in 'debate' situations. It could be to win an EU science grant for a particular project, defending the creation of a gene bank at a regional hospital, politics, education, science etc.
A few years ago my work centred mainly on science, education and data centers. Now there is more of a spread but the work itself is basically getting people ready to debate something and arm them with the tools to reach their goals. 'Communication' is the root of everything. Quite a bit of lunching with people in positions of influence and from high tech spheres (super computing, plastics, telecoms etc). It changes all the time.
I also teach English to people who don't have the means to study for themselves. I've also done Spanish language rock jounalism. I've also worked for the UK government.
What makes me an expert on Chinese telecoms companies? I didn't know I was.
If you are asking what makes me able to comment on Huawei in particular, you already know. I made it clear many times. The same that makes me able to comment on Apple.
Sorry, I wasn’t referring to the bolded text, I was referring to your (in general) bold, confident positions on your chinese knockoff brand, going so far as to tell us what their true motivations are despite what they actually say (example: they said they delayed their fold phone for QA, you said it was not QA). You comments are often at odds with other signals and market positions. So, again, what do you do (or did do) for a living? Are you experienced with telecommunications? Are you a PR person? etc etc... Help us put context around your bold statements and assist us in weighting your positions appropriately.
This is not an unreasonable ask. You state very controversial opinions. Why should we not write you off as a PR flak?
So Apple gets a media storm, memes, countless hate videos for less than 1% bent iPhones while Samsung gets away with 100% defected bent phones that break?
No. In a word.
Samsung didn't ship any and 100% didn't break. Also, if they are near ready to launch it is probably that the fixes were minor. Probably important but minor.
We'll now have to wait for the new official date.
Still a PR disaster but the phone itself might not be as much of a hardware failure as some thought. When it reaches users, we'll know soon enough.
It's a disaster in every way. But I love that you think it's somehow a good thing that they can't make a decent shipping product. I don't know why Samsung would have a Fanboy - but it's nice to meet you.
Considering you've never even used one, your claim is a bold one.
I prefer to let the device stand or fall on its own merits.
Maybe I'm old fashioned.
Your defense of the yet unreleased Mate X is noted as the subtext of your defense of Samsung's Galaxy Fold.
Sucks that Huawei decided to wait to release their Mate X when they could have pimped Samsung's return to market, given your extensive defense of their "delay".
For the record, the Galaxy Fold was so poorly designed, that people thought they were peeling off a protective cover...and the mechanicals of the hinges were failing virtually overnight.
But true that these were "evaluation" units, not units shipped to customers, as if there is a difference in production.
Kind of adds weight to those other potential reasons mentioned.
And it wasn't a 'defence'. I put some facts on the table and speculated a bit.
I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering more than 3 decades ago, and I work in manufacturing everyday, so when you speak wrt manufacturing or design, I roll my eyes.
Really, this would be a good time to just shut the fuck up and stop "speculating" with your PR skillset.
What are you trying to say?
In the absence of real information all we have left is speculation. Perhaps in your engineering degree world things are different but out in the real world you don't need an engineering degree to speak on the Mate X delay. Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't).
In the absence of that (and that is the case - there is no such reference) there are many reasons (and not mutually exclusive either) that come into play and they include areas that were not even touched on in the news of the Mate X delay and potentially far removed from manufacturing and/or engineering.
Now, I'm lucky because I get to speak to a lot of people from different technical and non technical fields and at a high level. Being able to draw from a wealth of opinion gives me more than enough confidence to speak on many subjects at this level.
Maybe I should roll my eyes too whenever you talk about anything you don't have a degree in. LOL!
Can you shed some light on how to frame your comments? What do you do for a living? I’m always happy to give context to my posts and share that I’m a former golden era dot-com’er and now an enterprise contract developer. How about you? What makes you an expert opinion on chinese knockoffs? What context do we put your bold, ultra-confident comments in?
I am an oldie like you.
No need to frame my comments in any particular way. They stand on their own, just like the comment you are referring to.
The bolded comment followed an 'unless':
"Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't)."
It was bolded because for him to validate his comments something would need to exist from Huawei that pointed to an engineering design problem. No such comments have been made.
Here is part of what was said (from the original CNBC report):
"But the spokesperson confirmed the official launch will take place in September. He said that the company was doing extra testing with mobile carriers around the world and developers to make sure their apps work when the device is fully unfolded"
I see nothing in there that so much as touches on an engineering design problem in the league of the Samsung issues. Do you?
That doesn't mean there aren't issues. Not in the slightest. It means we don't (and can't know) exactly why there was a delay beyond 'extra testing'.
There could be all manner of questions and I took the time to highlight some of them. Drawing on comments by executives and my own speculation based on what I know from all kinds of sources.
As for what I do, most of my work involves 'preparing' people for their work. Often this involves working with them or their teams to present robust arguments and counter arguments in 'debate' situations. It could be to win an EU science grant for a particular project, defending the creation of a gene bank at a regional hospital, politics, education, science etc.
A few years ago my work centred mainly on science, education and data centers. Now there is more of a spread but the work itself is basically getting people ready to debate something and arm them with the tools to reach their goals. 'Communication' is the root of everything. Quite a bit of lunching with people in positions of influence and from high tech spheres (super computing, plastics, telecoms etc). It changes all the time.
I also teach English to people who don't have the means to study for themselves. I've also done Spanish language rock jounalism. I've also worked for the UK government.
What makes me an expert on Chinese telecoms companies? I didn't know I was.
If you are asking what makes me able to comment on Huawei in particular, you already know. I made it clear many times. The same that makes me able to comment on Apple.
So, PR Spin is just your hobby, and would it be that Huawei, or an entity associated with Huawei, is one of your clients?
I have to note, you are one of the most defensive and confrontational "communicators" that I have come across on AI, with almost zero interest in appreciating or learning why Apple is and has been such a successful company for all of these years.
It's almost as if you shouldn't really be here at all, like you are from an alternative universe.
No association with Huawei or anything associated with them. No PR either.
Confrontational couldn't be further from the truth. My participation in threads on AI is probably less than 10%! Maybe even less than 5%.
That said, I will confront some examples of skewed information (look no further than this thread for examples) and if someone starts throwing insults around I will defend my position robustly (and without resorting to insults in return). In general the insults only begin in the first place when someone realises they are on shaky ground with their original claims and has little more to offer.
Take into account that some people are hyper sensitive to any criticism of Apple and if it comes from someone who is an Apple user (I am) they take it worse. Also take into account that I let a whole heap of frankly insane comments ride by with nary a squeak from me.
That's how non-confrontational I am. If you deliberately start using the term 'knockoff' knowing it not to be the case, or begin posts with 'nonsense' or a worse, or belittling term, that is far more confrontational IMO. If you see 'LIAR!' you have to question the maturity of the person doing the writing.
I mostly support my opinion with factual information and corresponding links and very often it is in response to an attack (personal or otherwise) or something that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
See for yourself. Of all the threads on any given day, how many do I participate in? Very few.
But if you say something that is just plain wrong you open yourself up to be corrected.
After all, someone reading from afar is interested in opinion, fact and supporting logic. That's what discussion forums are for!
It's NOT a fanboy forum. Sometimes I agree with posts, other times I don't. And, shock, horror, sometimes I even defend or praise Apple!
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
You appear to be underplaying the problems, as is your modus operandi.
"After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold. That analysis supported our suspicions that the device provided insufficient protection from debris damaging the screen.
We were provided our Galaxy Fold unit by a trusted partner. Samsung has requested, through that partner, that iFixit remove its teardown. We are under no obligation to remove our analysis, legal or otherwise. But out of respect for this partner, whom we consider an ally in making devices more repairable, we are choosing to withdraw our story until we can purchase a Galaxy Fold at retail.
Our team appreciated the chance to look inside this ambitious device. All new products face challenges—this one perhaps more than most. We’re grateful to have shared a glimpse of how Samsung’s engineers addressed some of those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as soon as possible."
This issue of insufficient protection will probably be even more pronounced with the Mate X, given that the flexible screen's only protection is the actual screen surface.
From the embedded "our suspicions" link above;'
"Who could have guessed that Samsung’s Galaxy Fold would be such a fragilePR nightmare? The iFixit folks who take apart and investigate mobile devices for a living, that’s who.
We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
There's a litany of potential problems that are related to the environment, and even to how the device is folded and unfolded.
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
You appear to be underplaying the problems, as is your modus operandi.
"After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold. That analysis supported our suspicions that the device provided insufficient protection from debris damaging the screen.
We were provided our Galaxy Fold unit by a trusted partner. Samsung has requested, through that partner, that iFixit remove its teardown. We are under no obligation to remove our analysis, legal or otherwise. But out of respect for this partner, whom we consider an ally in making devices more repairable, we are choosing to withdraw our story until we can purchase a Galaxy Fold at retail.
Our team appreciated the chance to look inside this ambitious device. All new products face challenges—this one perhaps more than most. We’re grateful to have shared a glimpse of how Samsung’s engineers addressed some of those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as soon as possible."
This issue of insufficient protection will probably be even more pronounced with the Mate X, given that the flexible screen's only protection is the actual screen surface.
From the embedded "our suspicions" link above;'
"Who could have guessed that Samsung’s Galaxy Fold would be such a fragilePR nightmare? The iFixit folks who take apart and investigate mobile devices for a living, that’s who.
We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
There's a litany of potential problems that are related to the environment, and even to how the device is folded and unfolded.
The opposite is try. I'm being fair. I have said I'll wait until units actually receive reviews based on real use. Even then, the true test will be the test of time (durability).
However, iFixit has commented on the design, not defects.
The phone, exactly as they tore it down was exactly as designed. That doesn't make them defective and in any case the 100% defective claim can only be made by Samsung.
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
You appear to be underplaying the problems, as is your modus operandi.
"After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold. That analysis supported our suspicions that the device provided insufficient protection from debris damaging the screen.
We were provided our Galaxy Fold unit by a trusted partner. Samsung has requested, through that partner, that iFixit remove its teardown. We are under no obligation to remove our analysis, legal or otherwise. But out of respect for this partner, whom we consider an ally in making devices more repairable, we are choosing to withdraw our story until we can purchase a Galaxy Fold at retail.
Our team appreciated the chance to look inside this ambitious device. All new products face challenges—this one perhaps more than most. We’re grateful to have shared a glimpse of how Samsung’s engineers addressed some of those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as soon as possible."
This issue of insufficient protection will probably be even more pronounced with the Mate X, given that the flexible screen's only protection is the actual screen surface.
From the embedded "our suspicions" link above;'
"Who could have guessed that Samsung’s Galaxy Fold would be such a fragilePR nightmare? The iFixit folks who take apart and investigate mobile devices for a living, that’s who.
We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
There's a litany of potential problems that are related to the environment, and even to how the device is folded and unfolded.
The opposite is try. I'm being fair. I have said I'll wait until units actually receive reviews based on real use. Even then, the true test will be the test of time (durability).
However, iFixit has commented on the design, not defects.
The phone, exactly as they tore it down was exactly as designed. That doesn't make them defective and in any case the 100% defective claim can only be made by Samsung.
Gee, if it was only iFixit;
"We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
I would note that there wasn't a common theme of failure amongst that list reviewers, which certainly isn't what you have implied.
"Brutal first act"
I'd venture that between the major and minor flaws found in the reviews, and given the expected life cycle of the Samsung Fold, there really might be a 100% failure rate.
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
You appear to be underplaying the problems, as is your modus operandi.
"After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold. That analysis supported our suspicions that the device provided insufficient protection from debris damaging the screen.
We were provided our Galaxy Fold unit by a trusted partner. Samsung has requested, through that partner, that iFixit remove its teardown. We are under no obligation to remove our analysis, legal or otherwise. But out of respect for this partner, whom we consider an ally in making devices more repairable, we are choosing to withdraw our story until we can purchase a Galaxy Fold at retail.
Our team appreciated the chance to look inside this ambitious device. All new products face challenges—this one perhaps more than most. We’re grateful to have shared a glimpse of how Samsung’s engineers addressed some of those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as soon as possible."
This issue of insufficient protection will probably be even more pronounced with the Mate X, given that the flexible screen's only protection is the actual screen surface.
From the embedded "our suspicions" link above;'
"Who could have guessed that Samsung’s Galaxy Fold would be such a fragilePR nightmare? The iFixit folks who take apart and investigate mobile devices for a living, that’s who.
We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
There's a litany of potential problems that are related to the environment, and even to how the device is folded and unfolded.
The opposite is try. I'm being fair. I have said I'll wait until units actually receive reviews based on real use. Even then, the true test will be the test of time (durability).
However, iFixit has commented on the design, not defects.
The phone, exactly as they tore it down was exactly as designed. That doesn't make them defective and in any case the 100% defective claim can only be made by Samsung.
Gee, if it was only iFixit;
"We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
I would note that there wasn't a common theme of failure amongst that list reviewers, which certainly isn't what you have implied.
"Brutal first act"
I'd venture that between the major and minor flaws found in the reviews, and given the expected life cycle of the Samsung Fold, there really might be a 100% failure rate.
But we can't claim that to be true until it reaches users, can we? Then we have to wait to see how they fare with daily use. I said exactly the same about the Mate X.
'I'd venture' is just a personal opinion labelled as such. I think that's a more reasonable approach than making claims like the one I was responding to.
There are going to be trade-offs. That's logical. New factors will come into play and be improved over time. No different to current trade offs like all-glass backs on many modern phone designs.
In the folding phone segment, the question is, does the idea have a future or will it be something like 3D TV or huge curved screens which don't appear to have had a future at all?
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
You appear to be underplaying the problems, as is your modus operandi.
"After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold. That analysis supported our suspicions that the device provided insufficient protection from debris damaging the screen.
We were provided our Galaxy Fold unit by a trusted partner. Samsung has requested, through that partner, that iFixit remove its teardown. We are under no obligation to remove our analysis, legal or otherwise. But out of respect for this partner, whom we consider an ally in making devices more repairable, we are choosing to withdraw our story until we can purchase a Galaxy Fold at retail.
Our team appreciated the chance to look inside this ambitious device. All new products face challenges—this one perhaps more than most. We’re grateful to have shared a glimpse of how Samsung’s engineers addressed some of those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as soon as possible."
This issue of insufficient protection will probably be even more pronounced with the Mate X, given that the flexible screen's only protection is the actual screen surface.
From the embedded "our suspicions" link above;'
"Who could have guessed that Samsung’s Galaxy Fold would be such a fragilePR nightmare? The iFixit folks who take apart and investigate mobile devices for a living, that’s who.
We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
There's a litany of potential problems that are related to the environment, and even to how the device is folded and unfolded.
The opposite is try. I'm being fair. I have said I'll wait until units actually receive reviews based on real use. Even then, the true test will be the test of time (durability).
However, iFixit has commented on the design, not defects.
The phone, exactly as they tore it down was exactly as designed. That doesn't make them defective and in any case the 100% defective claim can only be made by Samsung.
Gee, if it was only iFixit;
"We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
I would note that there wasn't a common theme of failure amongst that list reviewers, which certainly isn't what you have implied.
"Brutal first act"
I'd venture that between the major and minor flaws found in the reviews, and given the expected life cycle of the Samsung Fold, there really might be a 100% failure rate.
Can you imagine the 'doom' reports in the anti-Apple media not to mention Wall Street's reaction had this been an Apple iPhone?
I’m not sure how Avon B7 was unaware that indeed, dozens if not hundreds of units shipped ... to reviewers. In the US, at least, the majority of them “broke” (had catastrophic failures). Um, that’s sorta the reason the review units were recalled and the preorders cancelled and the official launch delayed, Avon ...
My point was to highlight and counter the claim that 100% failed.
Here is the quote as is from the poster in question (and in this thread):
"100% were defective. No PR disaster."
Perhaps you were unaware of that claim?
I am perfectly aware that dozens or hundreds of units shipped. That isn't being questioned.
In fact, I stated (again in this thread) that units were shipped worldwide and only a handful had problems. Many of those were due to a communication issue (they tried to peel off the plastic covering thinking it was removeable).
I also provided a link to a major review site that had to return their unit which had had no problems whatsoever. It was functioning as intended.
Here are two more major sites that returned their units undamaged:
It is more than clear that the original claim is false.
However, moving on from that irrefutable conclusion I think it's reasonable to assume that, apart from the big name commentators who did have problems, most simply didn't. The logic being that if they had failed they would have reported on it.
How are you reaching the conclusion of the majority of them broke when we only know of a handful of cases and no one knows how many were shipped in the first place?
Remember though, my comment was countering the claim that the 100% were defective.
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Um... yes. 100% of reviewers broke their Folds on accident. There was no one with a perfect device. It was a dismal failure. A flop.
That sounds like the sort of thing that should be verifiable. Any proof?
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
The road to innovation is not a smooth one. It's rocky, has cliffs on either side, and is narrow.
or, from T. Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could
have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in
the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who
strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually
strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great
devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows
in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he
fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall
never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor
defeat.
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
This was dealt with at the presentation.
What would you prefer, a single 'small' screen and the need to make it smaller by 'splitting'' it, or the possibility of have the 'split' screens on there own phone sized screens?
That's a complete no brainer.
Forget tablet use. A larger screen is better and moreso if it is flexible (pun intended). Browsing your gallery, photo retouching, text editing, even viewing video and in spite of tje aspect ratio.
Call it a folding phablet if you wish but don't try to label it uniquely as a tablet because it is more than that and I think Apple will apply the exact same approach to what Huawei and Samsung have done when the Apple folding phone finally appears.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
There are two glaring issues here:
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it.
Yeah that's gonna happen. /s Way to move the goalposts to something you know will never happen.
They DID confirm it by recalling the product. This is what companies do when a product is defective.
"Most of the display problems have been ironed out, and the Galaxy Fold is ready to hit the market"
Most? If that is the case then that is a huge fail. People will go out of their way to make then break along the fold. That is human nature I'm afraid.
Samsung should be very careful here. What little that is left of their reputation may just head down the toilet.
You guys are spending too much time talking about the display and folding issues.
The real problem with the Galaxy Fold is it runs Android. The operating system that's complete and utter garbage on a tablet. So you have a clunky Android phone with a small screen that folds out into a useless Android tablet. You don't get the best of both worlds - you get the worst. A regular large screen Android phone (like the S10+ or Note) is substantially better than the Fold.
Great point. Android isn’t even optimized for a regular tablet in 2019, let alone this thing.
Comments
A number of them certainly failed, and some design flaws were publicised. But 100% failure, or even the majority? I'm not sure I've seen that claim backed up, though it's being thrown around a lot in this thread.
That means there was probably already a considerable stockpile built and ready to ship. Do you suppose those were scrapped, or were they pried apart to install the corrected screens? If so, will those be sold as new or refurbished? Either way, that cohort of rebuilts will have additional manufacturing variables that could affect the final quality, so it makes a person wonder how all this is going to go.
No need to frame my comments in any particular way. They stand on their own, just like the comment you are referring to.
The bolded comment followed an 'unless':
"Unless of course you have seen Huawei make a specific and unique claim to an engineering design problem (and you haven't)."
It was bolded because for him to validate his comments something would need to exist from Huawei that pointed to an engineering design problem. No such comments have been made.
Here is part of what was said (from the original CNBC report):
"But the spokesperson confirmed the official launch will take place in September. He said that the company was doing extra testing with mobile carriers around the world and developers to make sure their apps work when the device is fully unfolded"
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/huawei-will-delay-mate-x-foldable-phone-launch-until-september.html
I see nothing in there that so much as touches on an engineering design problem in the league of the Samsung issues. Do you?
That doesn't mean there aren't issues. Not in the slightest. It means we don't (and can't know) exactly why there was a delay beyond 'extra testing'.
There could be all manner of questions and I took the time to highlight some of them. Drawing on comments by executives and my own speculation based on what I know from all kinds of sources.
As for what I do, most of my work involves 'preparing' people for their work. Often this involves working with them or their teams to present robust arguments and counter arguments in 'debate' situations. It could be to win an EU science grant for a particular project, defending the creation of a gene bank at a regional hospital, politics, education, science etc.
A few years ago my work centred mainly on science, education and data centers. Now there is more of a spread but the work itself is basically getting people ready to debate something and arm them with the tools to reach their goals. 'Communication' is the root of everything. Quite a bit of lunching with people in positions of influence and from high tech spheres (super computing, plastics, telecoms etc). It changes all the time.
I also teach English to people who don't have the means to study for themselves. I've also done Spanish language rock jounalism. I've also worked for the UK government.
What makes me an expert on Chinese telecoms companies? I didn't know I was.
If you are asking what makes me able to comment on Huawei in particular, you already know. I made it clear many times. The same that makes me able to comment on Apple.
I have to note, you are one of the most defensive and confrontational "communicators" that I have come across on AI, with almost zero interest in appreciating or learning why Apple is and has been such a successful company for all of these years.
It's almost as if you shouldn't really be here at all, like you are from an alternative universe.
The units shipped to reviewers should _not_ have been any different from a consumer model. Alpha and Beta test models are expected to be different, but not Review units. How can a reviewer do their job properly if what they receive is different from what consumers will receive?
This is not an unreasonable ask. You state very controversial opinions. Why should we not write you off as a PR flak?
Confrontational couldn't be further from the truth. My participation in threads on AI is probably less than 10%! Maybe even less than 5%.
That said, I will confront some examples of skewed information (look no further than this thread for examples) and if someone starts throwing insults around I will defend my position robustly (and without resorting to insults in return). In general the insults only begin in the first place when someone realises they are on shaky ground with their original claims and has little more to offer.
Take into account that some people are hyper sensitive to any criticism of Apple and if it comes from someone who is an Apple user (I am) they take it worse. Also take into account that I let a whole heap of frankly insane comments ride by with nary a squeak from me.
That's how non-confrontational I am. If you deliberately start using the term 'knockoff' knowing it not to be the case, or begin posts with 'nonsense' or a worse, or belittling term, that is far more confrontational IMO. If you see 'LIAR!' you have to question the maturity of the person doing the writing.
I mostly support my opinion with factual information and corresponding links and very often it is in response to an attack (personal or otherwise) or something that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
See for yourself. Of all the threads on any given day, how many do I participate in? Very few.
But if you say something that is just plain wrong you open yourself up to be corrected.
After all, someone reading from afar is interested in opinion, fact and supporting logic. That's what discussion forums are for!
It's NOT a fanboy forum. Sometimes I agree with posts, other times I don't. And, shock, horror, sometimes I even defend or praise Apple!
100% of them were defective which is why they pulled them off the market.
Some defective products take 5 years to break, these were breaking within DAYS, so to deny that they were defected or pretend like the ones shipped back worked fine is delusional.
I also find it funny that the media had a frenzy over less than 1% of iPhones bending (most with people forcing them to bend) while a product like the Galaxy Fold which is designed to bend, breaks when it does. No PR disaster.
Let's not move the goalposts. I did not say 100% broke, someone else did and I wouldn't doubt that either. If one review unit was shipped back without being opened that doesn't mean the product wasn't defected. They were all breaking while using the selling point function(folding).
Told you people would make Samsung out to be some hero. Didn't know it would be this soon.
Samsung copied an Apple patent. Threw crap at the wall before it was finished and failed.
THE END.
Delusional. Apple has been perfecting this tech for years. IF Apple decides to release it, it will be nothing like this garbage.
Maybe you need a history lesson?
1. The only way a 100% defective claim can hold up is if Samsung itself confirms it. That hasn't happened. After receiving the damaged units back they commented on what they found. The biggest issue seemed to be users damaging the screen by trying to peel off a plastic layer. Then there was a suspected screen impact and another with something under the screen. No further information was really given but they decided on a recall to investigate thoroughly. I would say most of the units went back functioning normally.
However, if we run with your logic, do you consider 100% of Apple butterfly keyboards to be defective?
2. You claim I am delusional but failed to counter any of the points I raised nor the questions asked. It would be a start if you could tell what the disadvantages are to being able to view multiple 'phone screens' on a single screen or for example, why Google Maps be less attractive on a larger phone screen than a current phablet.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/about-our-galaxy-fold-teardown
"After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold. That analysis supported our suspicions that the device provided insufficient protection from debris damaging the screen.
We were provided our Galaxy Fold unit by a trusted partner. Samsung has requested, through that partner, that iFixit remove its teardown. We are under no obligation to remove our analysis, legal or otherwise. But out of respect for this partner, whom we consider an ally in making devices more repairable, we are choosing to withdraw our story until we can purchase a Galaxy Fold at retail.
Our team appreciated the chance to look inside this ambitious device. All new products face challenges—this one perhaps more than most. We’re grateful to have shared a glimpse of how Samsung’s engineers addressed some of those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as soon as possible."
This issue of insufficient protection will probably be even more pronounced with the Mate X, given that the flexible screen's only protection is the actual screen surface.
From the embedded "our suspicions" link above;'
"Who could have guessed that Samsung’s Galaxy Fold would be such a fragile PR nightmare? The iFixit folks who take apart and investigate mobile devices for a living, that’s who.
We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
There's a litany of potential problems that are related to the environment, and even to how the device is folded and unfolded.
However, iFixit has commented on the design, not defects.
The phone, exactly as they tore it down was exactly as designed. That doesn't make them defective and in any case the 100% defective claim can only be made by Samsung.
"We’ve watched as Galaxy Fold review units broke for The Verge, CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube reviewer Marques Brownlee, each in interesting ways. And while it’s a new device, maybe even an all-new category, there’s still some aspects of the Fold’s brutal first act that we recognize."
I would note that there wasn't a common theme of failure amongst that list reviewers, which certainly isn't what you have implied.
"Brutal first act"
I'd venture that between the major and minor flaws found in the reviews, and given the expected life cycle of the Samsung Fold, there really might be a 100% failure rate.
'I'd venture' is just a personal opinion labelled as such. I think that's a more reasonable approach than making claims like the one I was responding to.
There are going to be trade-offs. That's logical. New factors will come into play and be improved over time. No different to current trade offs like all-glass backs on many modern phone designs.
In the folding phone segment, the question is, does the idea have a future or will it be something like 3D TV or huge curved screens which don't appear to have had a future at all?
I think the idea will be a success - eventually.
Yeah that's gonna happen. /s
Way to move the goalposts to something you know will never happen.
They DID confirm it by recalling the product. This is what companies do when a product is defective.
Great point. Android isn’t even optimized for a regular tablet in 2019, let alone this thing.