ericthehalfbee

They key issue is this:

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

" Many of the first foldable devices were plagued by reliability issues"

I'm unaware of any foldable phone being plagued with reliability issues. Quite the opposite is true.

AFAIK, all folding phones that have come to market have had great reliability so far. 

For the Samsung Fold, many review units were damaged by reviewers trying to remove a screen coating that should not have been removed.

Once that was corrected, along with some further design enhancements, the units that were released performed well.

That’s not true, and you know it.

AFAIK, it's absolutely true.

I have been following the folding phone market for three years now.

Reliability was a logical potential weak point in real world usage. If that had been an issue, the internet and every tech site would have been all over it - just like it was with the Samsung review unit fiasco.

If what I said were not true, the internet would have continued to blaze a trail of news on how bad folding phones were in reliability terms. That literally never happened.

No model has been plagued with reliability issues. 

You don't have to take Samsung's word on sales numbers. Industry watchers have also pointed out the huge success of folding phones even while still being an expensive niche product. 

More and more companies are bringing folding phones to market with Honor and OPPO in particular drawing high praise for their takes on the idea. 

It seems clear that folding (and probably scrolling) phones are here to stay and will take up more market share as prices come down. 

The phones have been getting better, I.e. - more useful, and more reliable. But the first generation were pretty terrible on all fronts. Samsung’s hinge failed pretty rapidly from dirt. The second generation hinge was better, but still had problems. The third gen hinges are, as far as I know, fine. But yes, there were problems with the screens other than the peeling off of the non-removable layer, which was Samsung’s fault, because they didn’t say it was permanent.

there is no huge success if these phones. All of that is from manufacturers data.

Links to support those claims?

I have seen zero pushback (in general terms) from first generation users.

Lots of pre-release doom and gloom from Apple users here (not helped by Samsung goofing the review units) that never actually materialised in the real world release.

As first generation products, both Huawei and Samsung hit the ground running. 

There are lots of links. I’ll just give one, as it’s basically giving some of the well known flaws. You can find plenty of others that go more into the problems, if you really want to know them. But you should, as you say you follow the closely.

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-fold-review-device-that-piqued-our-interest-in-a-foldable-phone-future-review/

Why do you waste time responding to this POS liar/troll? History has proven that’s all soap-on-a-rope knows how to do. I blocked him, but when people continue to quote him I still see their BS show up.

The best way to deal with liars is block/mute them. They want an audience. They want to argue with people and make them waste their time. If nobody ever responds to them they lose interest as that’s their only purpose in life. Let their garbage posts wither and die.

AppleZulu said:

ericthehalfbee said:

I love my original HomePods. I want Apple to enter the home theatre space and allow me to have surround sound with some arrangement of HomePods.

I hope whatever processor they use in the new HomePod has enough performance to allow real time audio tuning/processing. That’s one thing that sets the original HomePod apart from other generic speakers.

Dolby Atmos with beamforming would be great.

I still think the original HomePods are great and will be glad if Apple reverses on the discontinuation. 

Still, the idea of a home theater application combining four or more of the things just isn’t practical. That’s at least $1,200 for the four-way setup, more if you use more, and it’s probably a significant waste of computing power. Perhaps if they created add-on devices for the additional units that have the speakers and microphones, but that communicate with a single master device to handle most of the computational work, such a setup could be made more affordable and practical. 

I love my original HomePods. I want Apple to enter the home theatre space and allow me to have surround sound with some arrangement of HomePods.

I hope whatever processor they use in the new HomePod has enough performance to allow real time audio tuning/processing. That’s one thing that sets the original HomePod apart from other generic speakers.

Dolby Atmos with beamforming would be great.

Fred257 said:

Reviews that go in depth show a different story. If the new MacBook Air has only one Nand chip, like the newest 13’ MacBook Pro then it will be a downgrade in performance. Looks are one thing. But, like in any relationship it’s on the inside what matters most 😂

Another idiot posting this misinformation.

ALL devices that use smaller SSDs have lower scores than those that have larger SSDs. You can go back several years and see that the iPhone 7 or earlier MacBooks with base storage configurations were always slower. Nobody tried to make a scandal out of it. Why? Because it’s common knowledge that SSDs with fewer packages (chips) are slower. Anyone who builds their own gaming PCs would be well aware of this as repeated testing has shown higher capacity drives are faster.

The M2 is no different than previous Apple products that also had slower SSD speeds in base models. Except the M1. For some reason Apple used 2 x 128GB modules on the M1 MacBooks instead of their usual single modules. The M1 is the outlier having fast performance on the base model. If people want to accuse Apple of playing games or cheating, then they should look at the M1. Maybe Apple did this on purpose since this was the first Apple silicon Mac and they wanted ALL areas of performance to be top notch? Or maybe it was just a shortage of 256GB modules so they used the 128GN modules?

Whatever the reason, there’s no “scandal” with M2 SSD performance. It’s the same as previous generations of Apple devices. There’s just a group of Apple haters that are trying to manufacture a scandal out of something that’s been well-known and documented for years. That base model devices are slower. Whether it’s Apple or other companies.

Then we get to the throttling test. Another newly manufactured test to try and slight Apple (like the App Races YouTubers do to show Android phones are as fast as iPhones because they’re upset they lost in benchmarks). It’s downright hilarious (and pathetic) that Cinebench R23 is now the Apple haters favorite benchmark even though it has nothing to do with the type of work that 95% of users would never do. You’ll see these results everywhere while other benchmark tests are no longer used (funny how tests where Apple excels are invalid while tests that favor Intel suddenly are). It’s the age-old trick of changing test parameters when Apple gets ahead. Geekbench used to be considered a reliable test when Android phones scored higher than iPhones. When Apple took over suddenly it’s a useless benchmark.

Before the M2 I never saw laptop “reviewers” run Cinebench in extended loops to see how much the laptop throttles (and, boy, Intel doesn’t disappoint with significant throttling and power usage). Yet here we are. Another manufactured test that doesn’t equate with real-world performance and usage. Here’s an example:

One very well-known YouTuber tested the MBP M1 Pro against the new i9-12900. Never mind the MBP was $2,500 and the Intel was $4,200. Or that he should have used the M1 Max, which is closer in price.

The real scam is the Cinebench R23 tests. The Intel scored 17,000 to 12,000 for the M1 Pro. So clearly it’s faster. Then he unplugged the laptops and tested on battery. Intel dropped to 12,000 and M1 Pro STILL scored 12,000. That’s a whopping 5,000 point drop on battery. So what does this YouTubers do after discovering this massive drop on battery? Does he run his benchmarks twice (plugged in and on battery) to see how each laptop performs? No. He plugs them both in and does his full benchmark suite. This is the kind of testing that people consider valid? Worse yet, people always quote the 17,000 score of the Intel and conveniently forget it only gets 12,000 on battery. Or leave out that Intel consumes literally 3x the power to get that 36% boost. Oops, not a boost. On battery it gets the same score and still consumes 2X the power. And people use these numbers to conclude that Intel is better?


All this really proves is how good Apple Silicon really is. If it wasn’t it wouldn't be getting all the attacks from fake reviews doin obscure tests that nobody cares about before.