poisednoise

WayTools_Support said:

So stripping off the qualifier of “stored properly ” removes the entire meaning of the statement.

If your goal is to accuse us of “blatant untruth”, you’d intentionally strip off the relevant qualifier, to render the statement meaningless.

If your goal is to know the truth, you’d just read and understand the above facts.  What we said was precise and very true.  

Given I quoted the entirety of your post, I'm confused as to why you even suggest that anyone might have stripped off any qualifier, intentionally or otherwise. I'm grateful that you therefore acknowledge my goal was to pursue truth, and I thank you for the clarification, which does somewhat modify your original statement "lithium ion batteries don’t age on the shelf per se".

WayTools_Support said:

Science note - lithium ion batteries don’t age on the shelf per se, their life is defined by the number of charge / discharge cycles.  

New batteries, stored properly, don’t expire.  Alkaline disposables have expiry dates, but rechargeable Li Ion has very different chemistry.

Tesla Li Ion packs that are 7 years and 200K miles in, still work fine.  

An interesting fud narrative though.  Plausible-sounding vector to provoke doubt, but specious nonetheless.

Poster is probably smart enough to know this, but posted it anyway.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery :

Life of a lithium-ion battery is typically defined as the number of full charge-discharge cycles to reach a failure threshold in terms of capacity loss or impedance rise. Manufacturers' datasheet typically uses the word "cycle life" to specify lifespan in terms of the number of cycles to reach 80% of the rated battery capacity.[168].Inactive storage of these batteries also reduces their capacity. [my emphasis] Calendar life is used to represent the whole life cycle of battery involving both the cycle and inactive storage operations. 

In the midst of all the recent semantics as to what really constitutes a lie, WT appears here to be caught in a blatant untruth.

Goodness this is an extraordinary demonstration of how not to handle public relations. And what a pity for this nasty back and forth to follow what really was a very positive article.

If I had happened upon this thread and found two groups of people going at it hammer and tongs about whether the product was worth the wait, and whether they had been lied to or not, I’d have been happy to plough through it and come to my own conclusions, which would probably have been something along the lines of “sounds like a great product, pity there are delays, but I’m definitely going to keep my eye on this”. As it is, rather than remaining above the melée, WT waded in and demonstrated that they’re a company I don’t think I ever would want to have to deal with.

I’ll stick with my Apple iPadPro keyboard/cover I guess.

anantksundaram said:

poisednoise said:

anantksundaram said:

elijahg said:

Nope. But why does Netflix think they have a right to know what screen users are watching on, and how does that give them an advantage over broadcast?

Because it’s their product/service, and they fully well have a right to know who’s consuming it, how, where? You know, like just about every company does?

And those who don’t like it can go elesewhere, or not do business with them. This is not complicated. 

I’m struggling with this. If I buy a CD or a book, neither the publisher nor band/author know who I am or where/when I’m “consuming” the product. If I buy a box of cereal, again the supermarket/Kelloggs doesn’t have a “right to know” when or where I pour myself a bowl. I can absolutely see why this information is useful, and a lot of companies do their best to try to acquire this information (if I buy the CD from amazon, or get my cereal home delivered...) but it’s absolutely not a “right”.

If I am a cereal maker I surely want to know how you consume it, when and where: e.g., whether you eat it a bowl, or a plate, using a spoon, with milk or without, whether you eat it only in the morning or throughout the day, whether you eat it with your family or not, etc etc. This is basic information I will look for as I develop, market, distribute my product, and try to grow my share of the market. It’s basic marketing research. 

Technology takes this type of information-gathering to another level. That’s all. It’s for Netflix to decide what information it wants to better produce and market its product. As I said, if someone does not like it, they should stop doing business with them. 

Of course they want to know - I acknowledged that in my post. My question is whether they have an inherent right to know. Your post stated that they did, and implied that most companies already take advantage of that right. I was pointing out that for many products, that's not the case - it simply isn't possible to obtain that information. And of course Netflix can determine that they won't serve anyone who's not prepared to share that knowledge. I suspect that they may find the additional information they glean isn't worth the subscriptions they lose, and that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

anantksundaram said:

elijahg said:

Nope. But why does Netflix think they have a right to know what screen users are watching on, and how does that give them an advantage over broadcast?

Because it’s their product/service, and they fully well have a right to know who’s consuming it, how, where? You know, like just about every company does?

And those who don’t like it can go elesewhere, or not do business with them. This is not complicated. 

I’m struggling with this. If I buy a CD or a book, neither the publisher nor band/author know who I am or where/when I’m “consuming” the product. If I buy a box of cereal, again the supermarket/Kelloggs doesn’t have a “right to know” when or where I pour myself a bowl. I can absolutely see why this information is useful, and a lot of companies do their best to try to acquire this information (if I buy the CD from amazon, or get my cereal home delivered...) but it’s absolutely not a “right”.