Tangentially, it's interesting to see how Samsung's reveal video (at the top of the article) [1] is so uncannily similar to what Microsoft came up with a few years ago for the Surface Studio [2], right down to the music selection. Something about technology killing creativity, perhaps? /s [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_UgNcJtzQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZXp2geVKI (apologies that this isn't a link…
Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
91–100 of 204 posts
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
If IKEA can build a machine that repeatedly flexes their chairs until failure, I'm forced to believe that Samsung can build a machine that repeatedly flexes their screen. Surely that's not going to be the failure mode, it's more likely to be grit in the mechanism or fragility after dropping.
You would have expected Apple to test its keyboard designs in the same way - we know how that turned out. Ironically - if that's the word - I think a larger laptop format device with a tactile folding hinged screen would be more interesting than this enormo-phone. This device will probably sell moderately in the nouveau Asian markets, but I doubt it's going to be a storming success, or the template for the next gener…
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
If IKEA can build a machine that repeatedly flexes their chairs until failure, I'm forced to believe that Samsung can build a machine that repeatedly flexes their screen. Surely that's not going to be the failure mode, it's more likely to be grit in the mechanism or fragility after dropping.
You would have expected Apple to test its keyboard designs in the same way - we know how that turned out. Ironically - if that's the word - I think a larger laptop format device with a tactile folding hinged screen would be more interesting than this enormo-phone. This device will probably sell moderately in the nouveau Asian markets, but I doubt it's going to be a storming success, or the template for the next gener…
I applied numerous time for their Failure Analysis Engineer, Reliability Engineer, and other similar positions but repeatedly got rejected (or simply ignored by their ATS, I don’t play that keyword game very well).
My professional career in Materials Science and Materials Engineering has had a large focus on reliability testing and failure analysis. In parallel with inventing new technologies or pioneering research projects I have had to rigorously test and verify the robustness of the products. To put it plainly: the position descriptions were me. I had a bit more experience and qualifications but not so much that I was “over qualified”.
When I see some of the things that get through their engineers, I scratch my head and wonder what’s going on internally. Is there a lack of empowerment? Are those positions more or less for show and, while filled with legitimate engineers, not really leveraged as they should be?
At any of the places I’ve worked stuff that Apple has let slip through would have never flown.
The iPhone 5S compass/accelerometer issue (those of you who had it know, it was a bummer) and solving that by replacing the phone with another faulty one? The 2010-MacBook Pro discrete and integrated GPU switching failure? Right now I’m sitting in front of a 2017 MBP that has been used as a stationary desktop and babied with a keyboard cover and much TLC that has strange screen artifacts that seem to indicate that it was pinched or there’s adhesive in those regions while the rest of the screen is trying to pull away? Whatever it is has been there since I got it and I didn’t realize it wasn’t suppose to be that way until recently.
I stopped applying to Apple because nothing was coming of it and the thought of working for a company that claims to be detail oriented but let’s that stuff slip through was enough to put me off.
What’s inspiring though is that it gives their competitors and easy way to jump on the market. I’ve seen plenty new students choose Surface Books or Pro’s over Apple computers or tablets.
There’s a point where companies forget to continue earning their success.
I expect the foldable phone technologies have gone through considerable cyclic testing. That doesn’t mean that some manufactured ones won’t be flawed and that also doesn’t mean that people won’t be doing normal consumer things that cause failure sooner, but it’s likely these won’t be too bad.
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#94Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#95Samsung's answer to a $1,000 phone is a $2,000 phone? Bold.
The S10 line is the (great, IMHO) "answer" to the other flagships. And Samsung phones typically get cheaper after a couple months.
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#96Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#97It's good that this design puts the foldable screen in the inside. The surfaces of these screens probably won't be using scratch-resistant glass any time soon.
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#98> run three apps at once There are 3 numbers with programs - 0, 1, and infinity (or, more pragmatically, "run out of memory"). Programs that have arbitrary limits like "3" are just wrong. It's like the filename length limitations in operating systems. No matter how long they are, they are arbitrary and somebody overflows them. The real limit should be the size of the disk drive.
This is a user interface decision, not a programming decision. Allowing simultaneous viewing of arbitrarily many apps may not be a problem technically, but it would make the system more complex to use, with more possible interpretations of actions. It's a tradeoff.
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#99Considering a 512gb iPhone XS Max is $1450 I guess it's hard to call it any more overpriced than an iPhone. But both are too over-priced for me.
Re: Samsung’s Foldable Phone Is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold
#100Tangentially, it's interesting to see how Samsung's reveal video (at the top of the article) [1] is so uncannily similar to what Microsoft came up with a few years ago for the Surface Studio [2], right down to the music selection. Something about technology killing creativity, perhaps? /s [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_UgNcJtzQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZXp2geVKI (apologies that this isn't a link…