hungover

mathteacher said:

When I first read the report, I have decided not to buy one of these new macs. I trust CR's reports. I remember their report on bending iPhone 6 Plus. After that report all the phone manufacturers made their phones even more stronger.

tallest skil said:

bloggerblog said:

I can't believe out of 400 million Americans we get to chose from these two losers!

320 million, and it’ll be under 300 after Trump has fixed the problem.

badmonk said:

Great article DED.  As an independent, i am convinced Apple's most pressing immediate threat is a Trump presidency.  His talk of an Apple boycott over encryption , the sabotaging of international and trade relationships, forcing the return of iPhone manufacturing to the US, etc is ultimately bad for business.  This is why major business leaders are supporting Clinton.  You can argue that they are doing it out of self-interest, but Trump does not understand the way modern business runs.  And talk about currency and the Federal Reserve maybe valid points but it is not enough to make up for his faults.

Soli said:

hungover said:

They repeated the (non-cached) test a number of times, visiting the same local websites and got massively different results. And still they are at fault?

Regarding that, yes they are. When you go from 4.5 hours to 19.5 hours (nearly doubling Apple's statement of 10 hours under normal use) while doing a very specific test that only uses website page loads and does so with an developer setting disabled, then they should've considered there was something else going on.

And this isn't the first time CR has used poor methodology to test technology. There is no skullduggery on their part, they simply don't have the expertise needed to do a comprehensive test that can trusted, regardless of whether it's above or below a company's own battery life results.

mattinoz said:

jdw said:

anantksundaram said:

jdw said:

...Gary Johnson or Jill Stein too.

Two people who are 5% and 1% in the polls, respectively?

If you know, why don't you tell us? In fact, I challenge you to tell us. 

Folks, you know full well that if the mainstream media, including tech media like AppleInsider, would put those supposedly "irrelevant candidates" in the face of Americans perpetually, those candidates would no longer be as "irrelevant" as you contend in the minds of most Americas.  Yes, that's right -- the media shapes how we voters think insofar as our brains tend to only think about those candidates that are placed in front of our face continually.  Hide a valid candidate from our eyes and we think they are irrelevant.  Funny how that works.

If a candidate has no chance of winning in America, it's not necessarily due to their platform policies or lack of knowledge on non-tech related matters like Aleppo.  Sadly, it all comes down to "advertising."  And guess which two parties get the most advertising, which is not necessarily tied to money, but what the media decides to advertise.  People bash Johnson for Aleppo and a couple other things you can count on one hand.  Try counting all the major verbal gaffs of Clinton or Trump even using 2 hands.  And by the way, I am not really fond of Johnson or Stein, yet I seek to have them included.  Ponder that.

As to why I don't add to the AppleInsider article, that's obvious.  I am not a writer for AppleInsider and it is therefore their responsibility to include candidates who are outside the Donkeys or Elephants.  (And I say this as a long time registered Elephant, by the way.)

Yes the two party system is a convention not a requirement and every western democracy has rules built around the fact the elected representatives will need to form consensus not just turn up with one to install. Yet we let them get away with claiming that anything other than 1 majority party will render the system broken or worse still that one party having a majority should give them free reign to do what they want.

Even with a majority of voters Math just doesn't support their claim they represent the will of the people.
*Noting I say this as Australian not an American but as far as I can tell both our systems seem on the broken side.

Soli said:

hungover said:

Sorry but I don't understand the claim that Apple had to ditch the 3.5mm socket so that they could make the phone waterproof.

Don't the latest Galaxy phones have waterproof headphone sockets (that do not require a rubber bung)?

1) Removing points of ingress does make it easier to waterproof. Apple even talked about this with the Apple Watch and microphone and speaker ports.

2) Apple talked about what the internals space and edge "real estate" savings allowed their engineers to do, and this only the beginning. Think of how removing the ODD made way for a truly modern notebook.

3) Samsung can claim anything they want. A statement of waterproof is a lie. As statement of water-resistance is possible, but it doesn't mean your device will not be affected. An IPx7 rating only means they had a device tested that met that qualification, which in the case of a '7' for water-resistance means it can withstand being submerged In fresh water for 30 minutes at a depth of 1M, but it doesn't mean your device will not be affected.

This goes the same for any product by Apple. Keep in mind that any statement of water-proof, water-resistance, or an IP rating is to appeal to the customer (i.e.: marketing), but it doesn't mean the device can handle it. The company could have used an adhesive that will be 95% effective for about 6 months of use and then start to drop at a rate of about 10% per month. They may have also figured out that their customer-based isn't likely to go swimming with the device they're marketing so their risk is low. It's all about the numbers. We see something similar in battery capacity and fast charging, when many vendors use poor batteries that don't hold up well over time. Even Apple has a disclaimer that water damage isn't covered under their warranty, but I doubt they would forego replacing a defective device that was used in the proper way; it's more or less to legally protect themselves from the potential of pushing well past the limits of the device.

foggyhill said:

Didn't we ALREADY know that. I actually knew that without even trying (because I'm a computer engineer).
That; why Apple changed it later.
It's not an easy attack though; if a person is doing that to your phone, I'm guessing you can spring for an Iphone 7...