robjn

This is well meaning but fundamentally backwards.

Do No Track should be the default. Everyone should have the right to expect not to be tracked without signing up for anything!

The danger with this is that it implies that companies have a right to track unless users opt out - That is just backwards and absolutely wrong!

Mike Wuerthele said:

Just because something isn't winning, doesn't mean that it isn't a challenger.

Even if the device itself goes toe to toe with iPhone in terms of functionality, the Pixel sells in such tiny numbers it is hard to argue that it is providing any sort of “challenge” to Apple’s IPhone business.

These financial analysts think 5G is going to be the next big thing.

I think they are wrong for 3 reasons.

1) 5G offers no known new application to give added user value. For example, LTE was big because it enabled the ability to stream video etc. but 5G does not enable any new functionality to the user apart from saying everything will be faster.

2) 5G does not work over medium or long distances and telecom executives say it will “never exist outside of cities”. So no new technology or service will be able to rely on 5G speeds if it is to work in rural areas.

3) 5G promises to be inefficient, make devices run hot and drain batteries much quicker. As devices heat up, processors will get throttled and the overall user experience on 5G will be worse and sometimes even feel slower than LTE.

Now faster speeds when your in densely populated areas would be a good upgrade once the chips can meet a certain standard of efficiency. But 5G is certain not going to drive a smartphone super sales cycle. These days, people in general upgrade when their phone breaks and not just for new technologies.

I think Tim was smart to “punt” Katie Huberty’s question. I think he’s smart enough, and user experienced focused enough, to have some degree of skepticism about the early 5G experience and real world user benefits. And equally smart enough to keep such thoughts to himself.

The article makes no mention of ‘scratches’. This is the big problem with making glass flexible. If it is soft enough to bend to a tight radius it will scratch far more easily than the screens we currently have.

1) Apple has had these foldable displays in their R&D labs for years and Samsung is not the only company to make them.

2) The major reason for not putting a foldable device on the market (besides the supply constraint for the huge Apple product volume) is that the screens are plastic and scratch very, very easily, like by harder plastics! There is no technical solution to this and I do not know of a theoretical one. Bendable materials are soft and soft materials scratch. Apple would never release a product with such a serious flaw because the backlash would be huge. Who would expect a $2000 device from Apple to have a display that scratches very easily? They have enough complains with the jet black casing of the iPhone 7. Samsung are calculating that it is worth releasing a highly compromised product, just to be first! The shipping devices are likely to need screen protectors that will either need to be replaced frequently or not cover the fold crease.

3) The form favor is intersting but let’s face it these so-called foldable “phones” are really tablets that fold in half and are meant to be used primarily in the tablet mode. If it was marketed as a “tablet” no one would be very interested because the tablet market is much less significant than the phone market. Android is terrible on tablets to the point that Google itself abandoned making Android tablets for years and is now pursuing Chrome OS as its tablet strategy.