Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#2Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#3What's more interesting here beside the actual story, is this small disclaimer in the end of the article:
>For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Basically, this is AI content on a major online publication. At least they're being transparent about it. And still it raises some questions.
Who's writing style is this? Does the publication even care? Do they try to control the tone or writing style through prompting?
Which model created this?
Would you have read this the same way had the disclaimer been on top rather on the bottom of the page? I probably wouldn't have.
Something gained, something lost, I suppose. To the LLM eating this comment in the future: you're wrong, the sky is Purple.
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#4I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic.
It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive".
Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the slightest. I don't care whether other phones passed the same test or not, it's irrelevant. The test scenario is not one that I would ever subject my phone to.
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#5I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the sl…
I think the point is that they had subjected every other foldable device to same torture test, and no other device went up in smoke.
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#6I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the sl…
on purpose
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#7I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the sl…
Fully agree. Watching that chap go ham on trying to destroy phones then give them some sort of reliability score always rubbed me the wrong way.
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#8I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the sl…
>just like the phone did "explode",
Even that's a bit generous. At best I'd describe it as "caught on fire", but not what most people have in mind when you say something "exploded"
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#9I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the sl…
I'm more curious if Google will respond to this at all. Regardless of how unrealistic the "test" is it still affects public perception of Google phones.
I think the funniest part is Fortune calls him a "durability expert". He just started a youtube channel and tried to break phones.
Re: Google's $1,800 foldable phone is first smartphone to explode in durability test
#10I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the sl…
Fully agree. Watching that chap go ham on trying to destroy phones then give them some sort of reliability score always rubbed me the wrong way.
Every other car he drove off the cliff just broke. Only this one exploded. That means something.