- Last Active
Wow, this one brought out everyone, have not seen a thread this long in long time.
BTW, I was at the Apple store yesterday 1/1 getting my battery replace on my 6S (work Phone) 18 months old, for the last month the battery was dead by noon each day with light usage and supposed 89% life on the battery. Went to schedule an appointment last week and all the store with in 50 miles were booked through the 1st for in store support. When I call apple support they confirm as long as I book the appointment for the repair before 12/31 the store would still honor the discounted replacement.
Get to the store the story there was completely different, they refuse to honor the discount replacement, did not even want to talk about, refuse to call Apple online support to see what they were telling people, there were two other people at my table who were told the exact same thing. They made us all pay the full price. But they were more than happy to talk to us about trading in our old phone for a brand new one. Not sure how many time they reference trading in the phone.
After that experience I believe all the employees at the store were told no not talk about the battery replacement and push people to trade in their old phones.
I have to say this was the worse Apple experience I had. If this is the game they are going to play this is not going to go well for Apple.
it is now coming down to software optimization. pure processor power is not enough, unless the underlining code is optimize around the processor users will never see the performance. Even though the benchmarks try to work directly with the processor they can not they still have to interface with the operating system to execute code on the processor. The only way to eliminate the operating systems is to remove and replace it with the benchmark software which we know is not happening.
This is why Apple has the advantage and will always have the advantage. Google can not optimize their software to work with all the versions of processors.
Samsung is trying to impress people by saying it meets MIL-STD-810G, I know this standard and use to test things and not one other military used it any more. I highly doubt it meet most of the requirements at a product level, maybe some of the component could pass.
I want to see if it actually passed Method 511 Explosive Atmosphere, or Method 519 Gunfire Shock or maybe Method 522 Ballistic Shock.
I doubt their watch are this rugged, there are other ruggized standards out their for electronics other than this Mil Std I wonder why they did not use one of those.
I am sorry I really do not want the likes of Amazon or Google have this much access in my home. It bad enough that Google and Facebook got caught putting VPN software on people phones which routed all your data through their servers so they can see what you were doing when not using their apps. Think about if they have access to your home network.
In a previous job, I had access to both Gartner and IDC paid data as well as quarterly conference calls with their head analysis for the report, and it not very different than what they show publicly.
They may be trying to influence the markets, but I found they show us obviously bad data, and try to get us to comment on it and tell them or share with them our actually numbers and costs. The conversation were always one way them telling us what they though we never gave them our own data.
The reports I was looking at was based on actual data the supplier published and they number were usually off and they had all kinds of excuses. Like my supplier came in told me their company sold x units last quarter and analysis would say y units, and I ask why the difference and the usually best answer was the analysis never count channel inventory and WIP, like they know what are those numbers, only units which made it to the end consumer. The numbers got a lot murkier when you try to break it down by business segments and your competitors
First, HTC is known in the industry as an ODM more than EMS or CM, ODM is original design manufacturer, verses a contract manufacturer. The primary difference is you can go to ODM and ask them to put your name on their product or provide them a concept of a design with design specs and they have engineers on staff who can actually design the hardware then hand it over to the manufacturing arm to make. CM can not design anything they just put things together, you have to provide them all the design files and everything. Apple only uses CM, apple does all the hard work even down to designing some of the manufacturing technology to build the product.
My understanding of what Google did with Nexus and Pixel is the following: Nexus they went to HTC and others and said give them a phone they can put their name on. That obviously did not work well so they step up to the next level and put together a design spec for a phone and then went to HTC and ask them to design and build a phone to Google designs specs. Google does not have the thousands of hardware design engineers it take to design a phone from scratch and do all the necessary testing and such. "Their Design" was them taking reference designs from chip manufacturers and put them together with their design and performance spec and handed that over to HTC and had their thousands of engineers go to work can come up with an original design which Google approved then HTC made the product for them.
The reason Google fails is because they see no value in the hardware, this company is run by a bunch of software types and they see hardware only a means to the end like using a pencil to write on paper. The words on the paper have more value to them and who made the paper and pencil. Forget the fact some pencils and paper are far better than other so if you want your written words to out last the writer then it requires better lead in the pencil and the paper has to be of a quality which will not deteriorate over time. Google may have great feature in software but if the hardware that runs it is subpar than know one will know how good it is.
This is something Steve Jobs always understood, you can not change the world if your work can not our last its creator.
78Bandit said:This actually fits nicely with the rumor Apple is restarting production of the X because it has a glut of OLED panels it was obligated to purchase from Samsung. If that rumor is true and Samsung had a guaranteed minimum number of panels Apple agreed to acquire then any slowdown in OLED iPhone sales wouldn't affect its revenue in an unanticipated major negative way. You wouldn't see the effects on Samsung's revenue until the after the contract was up for renewal as Apple couldn't cut it's order mid-cycle like it can with smaller suppliers.
gtj333 said:Trying being a parent with kids who will use their iPads all day and night. Privacy is not the issue we have - it is managing their time that takes a ton of our time. Screen Time is a joke to control these scenarios - too complicated for parents to figure out and manage.
MDM works for IT departments to control their employees. As a parent, I'm the IT dept paying for these devices and I need similar ability to control the amount of time and what they can do.
Provide the warnings to the parent on privacy and let the markets decide - give us the choice to run apps like OurPact - it has been a lifesaver for our family. Apple would have done better buying OurPact instead of the complicated mess they attempted in iOS12.
You already have the most powerful tool available to you, its called being a parent and exercise your responsibility over your kids. It is easy just tell your kids to turn it off if they do not listen you take it away. Do not abacate your responsibilities as adult and parent to some third party and hopes they have your best interest in mind and not their own. In my house I only had to ground the electronics once for the bad unrespectful behavior to end.
BTW, sometimes your kids will get mad and tell you they hate you because you did the right things. They will get over it.
So AI shamed CR into telling everyone how they are testing.
In all honesty, doing the wide range of testing CR does is extremely hard to be a subject matter expert on so may topics, I would put CR testing in the range or user monkey testing (just randomly doing things to see if something goes wrong) and experts testing (where you have complete understanding of the technology and real work uses and failures). I have lots of product testing experience and one thing I have told people about this kind of testing, any test engineer can design a test which every product passes or fails, however, this taught you nothing about the products performance. The hardest thing to do it replicate real world use cases and results. This take years to understand and the only way to do this, is you have to have real world experience and data from products in the field which CR does not have, they only have anecdotal information.
Case and point, CR said they "train the panelists to discern characteristics of the sound" you can not train people to do this, please refer to the whole Yanny/Laurel debate.
People's hearing is influence by too many things, what you hear is not always what other people hear, this is why engineer use test equipment to determine how a speaker performs in a specific environment. I had friend who was an audiophile, loved his music and his equipment, he would go through great lengths to explain what he was hearing and why it was important and I could not hear what he was hearing or he could not explain it to me. But hook it up to test equipment and we both could see it in the data.
Their data is good at telling you whether you may or may not have an issue, and how you end experience may be, but it not going to tell you if you have good or bad product.