Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone X Teardown

ifixit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 372 posts

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#261

Post by mijowi »

mschuster91 wrote: post #203
jrs95 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least it's not Windows. I'm amazed at how something as basic as Bluetooth has been completely fucked for me since I got a PC. On no other platform have my Bose QC35s, AirPods, or wireless Logitech headset had issues. On Windows 10, they hardly work at all. Ironically the only device that works for longer than a few seconds before losing audio is my AirPods, which I still have to reconnect frequently to get the aud…

Thats the problem with Windows - it still does not carry a decent Bluetooth stack and depends on the vendor shipping one. And all of them I have seen so far are more or less crap. Linux on the other hand is exclusively Bluez which works fine... but god forbid you want to do something like BLE communications or more complex sound stuff, the docs are horrid. The OS X BT stack is... well I dont have any issues with it p…

> the problem with Windows

Windows has a ton of problems.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#262

Post by tigershark »

lovich wrote: post #190
tigershark wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry, but I think you didn't follow properly the discussion. The first quote I answered was exactly: "Fit and finish on many "high end" cars is actually pretty abysmal. Especially basically anything Italian." So, as everyone can see, the discussion was specifically around high end Italian cars, unless I'm missing some tricky and specific nuance of the English language in this context. In that case please enligh…

The point I found missing was why ferarri was brought up if you could point to 1998 as the time is was no longer high end for a legitimate reason, the foreign ownership. Someone could have conceived a child after that point in time and the child would be able to vote by now, why use it as an example? It seemed like either you knew what the other poster meant by Italian high end cars, the Ferrari brand, and chose to d…

Ehm.. Are you aware that Lamborghini and Ferrari are two completely different car brands right? Ferrari is Italian, Lamborghini was Italian and was sold to different parties since the 80's or something like that. From 1998 Lamborghini is German. In my original comment I said that I would be very surprised to find a Ferrari with a shit finish, and another user said that Lamborghini from 1998 to 2011 had abysmal paint quality. So I don't see any contradiction in my comments.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#263

Post by nixgeek »

cjsuk wrote: post #205
artursapek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must have bought yours on Amazon :)

No from the Apple store. See my other post. This is poor design, regardless of where it came from. There should be a hefty NTC or inrush current limiter in the charger.

Have you looked at an 87W USB-C charger to see if this was addressed with the latest generation of laptops?

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#264

Post by kristjansson »

timthelion wrote: post #85

I don't understand, when they got rid of the audio jack and added wireless charging, why does the phone have ports at all? Couldn't they make a port-less phone?

CarPlay is also probably a limiting factor. There are a few options for wireless CarPlay, but it seems the vast majority of implementations still rely on the cable. I doubt Apple would be willing to effectively kill such a feature with so much investment and partnership, and without an effective and equivalent alternative available.

Sounds a lot like the headphone jack now that I type it out, but I guess ‘if you want to listen to music, buy Bluetooth headphones if you haven’t already, or use the adapter’ is easier on the consumer than ‘if you want to keep using carplay, buy a BMW.’

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#265

Post by pavs »

winslow wrote: post #217
aliasxneo wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a datacenter technician for Google, this makes me happy to see other people recognize this.

Could you shed some light on why google moved away from their shipping container design to a more traditional yet still custom data center approach? Thanks!

Not working for Google, but I think it's for multiple reasons.

- hardware has gotten a lot faster, which helps the second reason.

- Google giving away free GGC nodes to ISPs (if you meet their requirements). The distribution of these nodes has gotten a lot wider since container days.

- Google is building more smaller scale (a dozen racks or so) traditional data centers closer to ISPs.

I don't think shipping container design was never a very good idea, to begin with - it was an interesting experiment that didn't scale as well as they thought it would.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#266

Post by kevinchen »

joering2 wrote: post #26
pat2man wrote: post #3

Amazing to see everything shrink (except for the battery). Reminds me of a quote referencing Blackberry falling behind the iPhone: "Imagine their surprise when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2043613

The new concept seems to be dual-battery. I'm sure they investigated designing simply L-shaped battery but for some reason they decided to go with two batteries instead. I wonder if its because one is supplying power to some critical circuits while other one isn't, or since display and battery are #1s replacement on these phones, they simply run some stats and decided that splitting cells into two separate battery bo…

Along with the reasons others mentioned, 2 cells means higher voltage, so the battery can deliver the same power using less current.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#267

Post by kevinchen »

woah wrote: post #253
foolfoolz wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

carrier authentication is huge! do you want someone to be able to subscribe to a network with your phone number? receive your calls? texts? or call or text as if they are you? yes the sim has little relevance to device security for most smartphones. contacts on sim are a great example of supporting legacy features for BC only. but the network is still very important to secure. sims are used for more than just phones.…

Carrier authentication is not huge. The vast majority of communications services today are secure without a SIM, even ones that are tied to your number. Ever notice that iMessage keeps working without a SIM? The SIM card is mostly a relic that is useful to the carrier oligopoly because it increases network switching friction.

If someone is able to authenticate as your phone number, they can set up iMessage and receive a copy of your future messages.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#268

Post by sengork »

It is interesting to observe that this teardown has been carried out down under (in Australia). Maybe it had something to do with the timezones and release date.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#269

Post by rizwank »

FreakyT wrote: post #175
SadWebDeveloper wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its funny that in the old days the main selling point of GSM/SIM-Cards were that you could physically change from phone to phone and kept your line (and contacts), now we the recent race to get things as little as possible and that virtually no one is using by default any of the extra-GSM functionalities has (contact backup), coming back to a non-physical identity as the solution (like in the CDMA days) that will for…

Completely agree -- the magic of SIM cards is that they allow you to quickly switch providers. I find it ridiculous that people are clamoring for eSIMS, which as you point out is not moving forward, but moving backward to the old CDMA days when you had to plead with your carrier to reconfigure your phone.

Proper eSIM and eUICC implementations should allow remote flashing - there is a bootstrap IMSI and allow overloading of additional. Apple SIM (sans ATT on iPad) is an early non standard implementation.

But getting carriers to support the interchange is hard. Device manufacturers would love to remove the SIM card and make eSIM proprietary to lock their phones into a walled garden - “Pay to add your IMSI to this device.” Carrier do not love. Also carriers are telcos, not tech companies.

One exception : IoT. Distributed sensors that have 10 year lifespan need flexibility; and eSIM is a bigger push there.

Citation : Run an MVNO that is wary of the future of eSIM.

Re: iPhone X Teardown

#270

Post by lovich »

tigershark wrote: post #262
lovich wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I found missing was why ferarri was brought up if you could point to 1998 as the time is was no longer high end for a legitimate reason, the foreign ownership. Someone could have conceived a child after that point in time and the child would be able to vote by now, why use it as an example? It seemed like either you knew what the other poster meant by Italian high end cars, the Ferrari brand, and chose to d…

Ehm.. Are you aware that Lamborghini and Ferrari are two completely different car brands right? Ferrari is Italian, Lamborghini was Italian and was sold to different parties since the 80's or something like that. From 1998 Lamborghini is German. In my original comment I said that I would be very surprised to find a Ferrari with a shit finish, and another user said that Lamborghini from 1998 to 2011 had abysmal paint…

I just re-read the thread, completely missed that 'serf replied with Lamborghini when you spoke about Ferrari. My apologies for the snark, it was uncalled for
Post reply on HN