About Our Galaxy Fold Teardown(ifixit.org)
ifixit.org
About Our Galaxy Fold Teardown
https://ifixit.org/blog/16189/about-our-galaxy-fold-teardown/
91 comments
I'm not sure what Samsung is going to learn from Apple specifically. When Jobs demoed the iPhone in 2007, they had to hard-code the bars that indicate a full strength mobile signal. Up until the 3GS in 2009, people complained that their iPhone kept dropping calls. When Jobs, widely feted as a design and customer experience obsessive, was asked about it, he just said "You're holding it wrong".
The 2018 iPad Pro, the super-premium professional's device, still doesn't have mouse support. It's marketed with the quote "What's a computer?" which is a bit ironic.
The 2018 iPad Pro, the super-premium professional's device, still doesn't have mouse support. It's marketed with the quote "What's a computer?" which is a bit ironic.
> The 2018 iPad Pro, the super-premium professional's device, still doesn't have mouse support. It's marketed with the quote "What's a computer?" which is a bit ironic.
Is mouse support required for something to be considered a computer? Recall that computers existed before mice and professionals still managed to use them.
It's worth noting that the iPad does support pointing devices, just not mice. You probably have more than one of those pointing devices attached to your body at all times. The iPad also supports an implement that mimics something professionals have been using to draft blueprints and create art for millennia.
"What's a computer?" clearly bombed as a commercial tagline, but it raises an interesting point. The iPad is not the kind of computer you're used to seeing, but it most definitely is a computer.
Is mouse support required for something to be considered a computer? Recall that computers existed before mice and professionals still managed to use them.
It's worth noting that the iPad does support pointing devices, just not mice. You probably have more than one of those pointing devices attached to your body at all times. The iPad also supports an implement that mimics something professionals have been using to draft blueprints and create art for millennia.
"What's a computer?" clearly bombed as a commercial tagline, but it raises an interesting point. The iPad is not the kind of computer you're used to seeing, but it most definitely is a computer.
> Is mouse support required for something to be considered a computer?
The ipad pro's marketing copy describes it as "..packed with our most advanced technology, it will make you rethink what iPad is capable of. And what a computer is capable of."
Computers are capable of using mice. Even a WinCE box sitting inside a touchscreen ATM will support a mouse if you can hook one up to it.
> The iPad also supports an implement that mimics something professionals have been using to draft blueprints and create art for millennia.
I don't recall ever needing to buy a pencil that was specific to the make and model of the paper I wrote on.
My original comment was in response to "Samsung should look at what Apple is doing". And what they're doing, and doing very well, appears to be writing persuasive marketing copy that turns glaring feature deficiencies into upsell opportunities like "just buy the pen for another $100".
The ipad pro's marketing copy describes it as "..packed with our most advanced technology, it will make you rethink what iPad is capable of. And what a computer is capable of."
Computers are capable of using mice. Even a WinCE box sitting inside a touchscreen ATM will support a mouse if you can hook one up to it.
> The iPad also supports an implement that mimics something professionals have been using to draft blueprints and create art for millennia.
I don't recall ever needing to buy a pencil that was specific to the make and model of the paper I wrote on.
My original comment was in response to "Samsung should look at what Apple is doing". And what they're doing, and doing very well, appears to be writing persuasive marketing copy that turns glaring feature deficiencies into upsell opportunities like "just buy the pen for another $100".
> Computers are capable of using mice.
Not all of them. The iPad is a computer and it doesn’t support mice. To be less flippant, neither did a lot of computers prior to the original Macintosh, but they were certainly computers that were capable of real, professional work. Even today, many programmers still favor text editors like vi and emacs for which the mouse is an afterthought if it’s supported at all. You don’t need a mouse to make a computer.
> In fact, Even a WinCE box sitting inside a touchscreen ATM will support a mouse if you can hook one up to it.
If WinCE is your example of “advanced technology”, I think we’re done here.
Almost all technology becomes obsolete eventually. I’m not saying that’s happened to the mouse (in fact, rumors suggest that the next version of iOS will support mice), but I also think you’re failing to acknowledge that progress sometimes means removing vestigial features. I don’t see too many people complaining that it’s hard to find floppy disks these days. You don’t have to buy the pencil. It’s a value-add. You can use your fingers. You know, the world’s most natural, intuitive, and (in almost all cases) inexpensive pointing devices. On touch-screen devices, they’re a pretty good substitute for a mouse in the same way that a USB drive is a pretty good substitute for a floppy disk.
I don’t really understand why you’re so concerned with marketing copy. My guess is that you just don’t like Apple and nothing will convince you that you’re wrong. But you are. The iPad is a computer. A pretty powerful one too. That fact that it doesn’t adopt the 40-year-old WIMP-based user interface scheme doesn’t mean much.
Not all of them. The iPad is a computer and it doesn’t support mice. To be less flippant, neither did a lot of computers prior to the original Macintosh, but they were certainly computers that were capable of real, professional work. Even today, many programmers still favor text editors like vi and emacs for which the mouse is an afterthought if it’s supported at all. You don’t need a mouse to make a computer.
> In fact, Even a WinCE box sitting inside a touchscreen ATM will support a mouse if you can hook one up to it.
If WinCE is your example of “advanced technology”, I think we’re done here.
Almost all technology becomes obsolete eventually. I’m not saying that’s happened to the mouse (in fact, rumors suggest that the next version of iOS will support mice), but I also think you’re failing to acknowledge that progress sometimes means removing vestigial features. I don’t see too many people complaining that it’s hard to find floppy disks these days. You don’t have to buy the pencil. It’s a value-add. You can use your fingers. You know, the world’s most natural, intuitive, and (in almost all cases) inexpensive pointing devices. On touch-screen devices, they’re a pretty good substitute for a mouse in the same way that a USB drive is a pretty good substitute for a floppy disk.
I don’t really understand why you’re so concerned with marketing copy. My guess is that you just don’t like Apple and nothing will convince you that you’re wrong. But you are. The iPad is a computer. A pretty powerful one too. That fact that it doesn’t adopt the 40-year-old WIMP-based user interface scheme doesn’t mean much.
>super-premium professional's device, still doesn't have mouse support
I would like mouse support on the iPad as much as anyone else here, but it's still a very bold assumption to say it needs to have a mouse to be called "professional". It only takes a few minutes in any large airport to see real professionals using iPads for real work.
I would like mouse support on the iPad as much as anyone else here, but it's still a very bold assumption to say it needs to have a mouse to be called "professional". It only takes a few minutes in any large airport to see real professionals using iPads for real work.
Not having mouse support is just the tip of what's wrong with the iPad Pro as a work device. The file management system is extremely primitive compared to Android, never mind a desktop OS. A quote from an article [0] about using the Ipad Pro as a daily driver:
> Accepting this new reality – that an iPad can't manage local files and folders like a Mac – took time and dedication. If you don't adapt – if you think you can force iOS to be more like the Mac's Finder – you're going to have a bad experience in your transition to iOS.
I think people's expectations of a 'professional' device include not having to adapt their workflow to suit the device's inherent half-baked approach.
I do see people using iPad Pros for work. The head of my division is one of them. Unsurprisingly, he uses it to respond to emails and swipe through slide decks people send him. So basically, exactly like an iPad or even a $300 Android tablet. I'd wager there are 10x more users like him using iPad Pros than there are people using the Apple Pencil to do SVG or print design in Procreate or Affinity Publisher, apps that are actually tailor made for the ipad Pro.
[0]: https://www.macstories.net/stories/one-year-of-ipad-pro/2/
> Accepting this new reality – that an iPad can't manage local files and folders like a Mac – took time and dedication. If you don't adapt – if you think you can force iOS to be more like the Mac's Finder – you're going to have a bad experience in your transition to iOS.
I think people's expectations of a 'professional' device include not having to adapt their workflow to suit the device's inherent half-baked approach.
I do see people using iPad Pros for work. The head of my division is one of them. Unsurprisingly, he uses it to respond to emails and swipe through slide decks people send him. So basically, exactly like an iPad or even a $300 Android tablet. I'd wager there are 10x more users like him using iPad Pros than there are people using the Apple Pencil to do SVG or print design in Procreate or Affinity Publisher, apps that are actually tailor made for the ipad Pro.
[0]: https://www.macstories.net/stories/one-year-of-ipad-pro/2/
The funny thing is, Samsung will work out all the bugs and take the hit to their reputation, then a few years from now, Apple will buy those parts from Samsung while claiming they invented the technology and its now the Best Thing Ever.
Well, at least Apple is not bashing competitor's innovation this time around, as they did with phablets ("nobody would buy something that big"), spen ("over my dead body"), or AMOLE ("awful), that's a progress for Apple.
We probably won't see any foldables from Apple for a long while, but, when they do release one with few cosmetic changes here and there, you are right that their loyal customers would all rise and praise it as a first breakthrough innovation.
We probably won't see any foldables from Apple for a long while, but, when they do release one with few cosmetic changes here and there, you are right that their loyal customers would all rise and praise it as a first breakthrough innovation.
Putting together different technology and building a conherent user experience is where the value is.
The technology alone doesn't mean that much.
The technology alone doesn't mean that much.
It turns out that it matters more to be able to exercise judgement than to be able to create brand new things.
Most really amazing products and inventions are constructed out of technological building blocks that already existed. The Mac, the iPhone, Bitcoin, and many others that I'm forgetting. Existing technology, applied together with judgement about the way it can actually be used by The Rest Of Us, for lack of a better term.
Fun fact: Not one cryptographic primitive in Bitcoin was less than (IIRC) 7 years old when Bitcoin was first released.
Most really amazing products and inventions are constructed out of technological building blocks that already existed. The Mac, the iPhone, Bitcoin, and many others that I'm forgetting. Existing technology, applied together with judgement about the way it can actually be used by The Rest Of Us, for lack of a better term.
Fun fact: Not one cryptographic primitive in Bitcoin was less than (IIRC) 7 years old when Bitcoin was first released.
Somebody has to be first
I think the main difference is that Samsung is primarily a hardware company. Their phones are showcases of what they can do with screens, sensors etc.. Once they have shown that, companies like Apple will buy said screens from Samsung.
And in the meantime Samsung's credibility will sank. I don't buy it that they did it to showcase the technology. They could have done the same with a prototype showcased to a selected few. They went loud in order to awe the public and it blew in their face. Which sends the message that they don't really care about quality. Good luck the next time they'll try to sell a high-end phone. Perceived value is very important for a company's image.
They sold phones that were exploding into flames just a few years ago. Aside from some memes it didn't hurt their brand.
Samsung is having a lot of quality issues lately. There is a problem with the S10, which causes it to permanently lose connectivity, requiring a device swap. It seems to affect all carriers, but for some reason is affecting Sprint more than others. Of the 7 people I know on Sprint with an S10, all have had to swap them out for replacements.
Current rumor is "there is a RF transmission issue that burns up the modem, quite literally, so then it won't read anymore. Can happen on any band. The software releases are supposed to prevent this from happening. But if your device has succumbed to this already, you're hosed." https://s4gru.com/forums/topic/7899-galaxy-s10-family-discus...
Current rumor is "there is a RF transmission issue that burns up the modem, quite literally, so then it won't read anymore. Can happen on any band. The software releases are supposed to prevent this from happening. But if your device has succumbed to this already, you're hosed." https://s4gru.com/forums/topic/7899-galaxy-s10-family-discus...
> Samsung is primarily a hardware company.
As is Apple
As is Apple
Apple sell a unified package of hardware and software. An iPhone without iOS is just another flagship phone with mediocre battery life and a good camera. Many (most) of the advantages of MacOS disappear if Apple supported the same range of commodity hardware as Microsoft.
Samsung can't credibly claim that their software is a selling point; for Apple, it's an integral part of their business.
Samsung can't credibly claim that their software is a selling point; for Apple, it's an integral part of their business.
Would it be more accurate to say Samsung is a hardware component company then?
Close to 50-50 according to their breakdown of revenue by business division [0]. Assuming "consumer electronics" and "mobile communications" mostly refer to selling finished products, and the other groups like "semiconductors" are for selling components.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/630434/samsung-quarterly...
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/630434/samsung-quarterly...
Samsung is a big and diverse company, not really comparable to a more focused company like Apple. In addition to smartphones and components, they’re the largest manufacturer of TVs and a big manufacturer of appliances. If you look at the larger Samsung group, and not just Samsung Electronics, it includes one of the largest shipbuilders in the world, construction, life insurance, and more.
Apple doesn't do the sort of in depth R&D into things like displays that Samsung does. They do it with their A series chips, but for displays, modems etc. they source from the likes of Samsung etc.
You sure about that?
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/03/19/apple-mi...
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/03/19/apple-mi...
Yes, am sure, they may have future plans to develop something in house, but I was talking about what's going on currently. I mean they probably have a lot of plans; develop their own modem, switch Macs to ARM etc. but that's not the reality on the ground at the moment.
Also, there's a lot of display tech that Samsung has, so Apple would either have to license these, driving the component cost higher, or work around them, which seems quite difficult.
Also, there's a lot of display tech that Samsung has, so Apple would either have to license these, driving the component cost higher, or work around them, which seems quite difficult.
I think there's still a fundamental difference in Samsung's focus on competing on hardware, while Apple seems to put more emphasis on building a custom software ecosystem, rarely caring (or perhaps needing) to be at the cutting-edge of phone hardware specifications.
>You don't need to be first, Apple has repeatedly claimed to have the first of its kind but it was always just a clever rebrand of an existing technology.
The First part is invention, the second part is innovation.
And yet people and media keep complaining about Apple will / might / could be late with Phablet, 5G, Folding Screen etc.... And being late will fall behind and damage the company. I could understand this coming from common people who are not well versed in tech, but tech journalist? They are either an idiot or making up stories for attention.
The First part is invention, the second part is innovation.
And yet people and media keep complaining about Apple will / might / could be late with Phablet, 5G, Folding Screen etc.... And being late will fall behind and damage the company. I could understand this coming from common people who are not well versed in tech, but tech journalist? They are either an idiot or making up stories for attention.
Folding screens are neat but I don't think very many people are going to actually want one after the novelty wears off.
If the form factor is good enough why wouldn't you want the ability to have a tablet sized screen whenever you need a bit more space to do stuff?
This seems like the first actual bit of interesting innovation in smartphones in about a decade..
This seems like the first actual bit of interesting innovation in smartphones in about a decade..
For the current mainstream idea of a smartphone sure. That said foldable screens could be of amazing use for a lot of things:
- construction site worker maps - office replacement of tablets - very small when folded smartphone - runners
- construction site worker maps - office replacement of tablets - very small when folded smartphone - runners
The masses are probably going to want one once the tech matures a bit and Apple releases one. I wouldn’t be surprised based on the way it went with MP3 players, tablets, and even touchscreen phones in the first place.
If Apple doesn’t release one, it’s because the tech is too fragile, and that’s a huge signal worth waiting for if you’re on the fence.
If Apple doesn’t release one, it’s because the tech is too fragile, and that’s a huge signal worth waiting for if you’re on the fence.
> I wouldn’t be surprised based on the way it went with MP3 players, tablets, and even touchscreen phones in the first place.
or it could go the way it went with phablets or AMOLED -- two related display techs that are relevant to this particular tech.
> If Apple doesn’t release one, it’s because the tech is too fragile
or Apple doesn't understand the tech, or doesn't know how to package and market it.
or it could go the way it went with phablets or AMOLED -- two related display techs that are relevant to this particular tech.
> If Apple doesn’t release one, it’s because the tech is too fragile
or Apple doesn't understand the tech, or doesn't know how to package and market it.
I want one, but I'm not going to spend $2k on something so fragile which I'm going to take in and out of my pocket constantly.
Why? Samsung had phones that literally exploded, and last year was their best year ever.
And yet, somebody has to do it first. Else how would there be something to do best ?
So it's not only "who does it best".
So it's not only "who does it best".
It seems like it comes down to intent. If Samsung has released a prototype device (could be the exact same device but labeled as prototype), then people are likely to be more forgiving. There is a certain level of expectation that a prototype has known shortcomings or incomplete consumer-level testing.
Of course, this means that competitors probably have hands-on with your device as well.
Edit: See below comment for insight into situation
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19755038
Of course, this means that competitors probably have hands-on with your device as well.
Edit: See below comment for insight into situation
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19755038
That makes sense actually.
Being like Apple isn't the only way to make money in this world.
But given the evidence, being like Apple is clearly the most effective way to make money in this world.
No, being Apple is the most effective way. Being like Apple is a completely different thing.
No, but it's a really fucking good way to make money.
Apple has managed to convince a huge number of people to pay premium prices for average hardware and software that often loses features with each new release. Any company on the planet would be thrilled to be in that position.
Apple has managed to convince a huge number of people to pay premium prices for average hardware and software that often loses features with each new release. Any company on the planet would be thrilled to be in that position.
> No, but it's a really fucking good way to make money.
How do you figure? It would be a huge win for consumers, but all it would accomplish is making Apple compete more. There's still more blue ocean to grab, no need to bloody the waters just yet.
How do you figure? It would be a huge win for consumers, but all it would accomplish is making Apple compete more. There's still more blue ocean to grab, no need to bloody the waters just yet.
[deleted]
Why would they take it down? It's archived...
mirror:
https://gofile.io/?c=YOwVef
> Why would they take it down?
Why wouldn't you follow and read the link? It's three short paragraphs and the second paragraph describes in no uncertain terms why they took it down.
Why wouldn't you follow and read the link? It's three short paragraphs and the second paragraph describes in no uncertain terms why they took it down.
The second paragraph describes why iFixit took it down, you are correct.
But I think the GP's "they" means Samsung, not iFixit, and "why" means "why would Samsung do this stupid thing that will obviously attract attention to the issue"
But I think the GP's "they" means Samsung, not iFixit, and "why" means "why would Samsung do this stupid thing that will obviously attract attention to the issue"
my guess on why samsung did it: the leaker (as in, the person that gave ifixit the device) had an NDA with samsung and samsung is just enforcing it -- they are asking for them to take the teardown down instead of suing for breach.
(of course, that's all a guess, i'm not even close to be a lawyer).
(of course, that's all a guess, i'm not even close to be a lawyer).
Yes perhaps we are seeing the Streisand effect in this situation?
They removed the detailed analysis but the conclusion remains the same and is perhaps even reinforced: "Samsung's Fold breaks easily, is not ready yet"
Probably samsung wanting to erase some traces. All reviewers are shipping it back, probably mandatory [0].
[0]: https://youtu.be/TtpIzMhNtDE
[0]: https://youtu.be/TtpIzMhNtDE
Is there a mirror?
Another mirror (not as good as archive.org's however): https://archive.is/PFRPp
How did you find that old URL? I mean, the new blog post has a different URL... Did you use a search engine or some kind of browser extension?
In addition to the other methods mentioned in the replies, The Internet Archive does have a search function on the main page, plus and advanced search option [0]. You can also lookup all saved pages that start with "https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/" and sort by the date they were first saved (the "from" column)[1].
[0] https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.ifixit.com/Teardow...
[0] https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.ifixit.com/Teardow...
The original link is the first result on Google for "galaxy fold teardown" even though it now redirects to the new blog post.
Probably just browsing the archive to the front page of iFixit as of yesterday, which would link to this article.
Search engines aren't the only way to navigate the web, you know...
Search engines aren't the only way to navigate the web, you know...
Shoot the messenger. That should take care of the problem. /s
I'm puzzled as to how Samsung thought that this phone was ready for prime time. Was it being pushed top-down and no underling dared to speak up?
I'm puzzled as to how Samsung thought that this phone was ready for prime time. Was it being pushed top-down and no underling dared to speak up?
The story going around is this:
a) Samsung spent a ton of money and research in building foldable OLED screens.
b) This technology is allegedly stolen by a supplier and sold to BOE Display: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Samsung-supplier-...
c) Huawei uses the foldable BOE Display technology in its Mate X smartphone and is on track to be the first to release it.
d) Samsung panics as it learns that the technology it built might be released by a competitor earlier than them and consumers might think of them as less of an innovator. May sound silly but the Chinese companies have been getting a lot of traction recently e.g. P30 Pro.
e) In addition Samsung goes into lock down as it fears there might be more leaks to other companies.
f) Combination of d) and e) means that there is less real world testing of the device than for other phones. And hence how we got to this point.
a) Samsung spent a ton of money and research in building foldable OLED screens.
b) This technology is allegedly stolen by a supplier and sold to BOE Display: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Samsung-supplier-...
c) Huawei uses the foldable BOE Display technology in its Mate X smartphone and is on track to be the first to release it.
d) Samsung panics as it learns that the technology it built might be released by a competitor earlier than them and consumers might think of them as less of an innovator. May sound silly but the Chinese companies have been getting a lot of traction recently e.g. P30 Pro.
e) In addition Samsung goes into lock down as it fears there might be more leaks to other companies.
f) Combination of d) and e) means that there is less real world testing of the device than for other phones. And hence how we got to this point.
Interesting.
>>d) Samsung panics as it learns that the technology it built might be released by a competitor earlier than them and consumers might think of them as less of an innovator. May sound silly but the Chinese companies have been getting a lot of traction recently e.g. P30 Pro.
Doesn't sound silly at all. I have a Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S and it's an amazingly good phone for the price (replaced my Google Pixel 2, which I liked enough). I'll absolutely buy a Chinese phone to replace this phone when it's time in a few years, or at least look into it. Other people constantly ask about the phone (has a striking reflective ceramic back) and haven't heard of Chinese phones, but are considering alternatives in droves due to the insane prices of flagships by Apple and Samsung.
>>d) Samsung panics as it learns that the technology it built might be released by a competitor earlier than them and consumers might think of them as less of an innovator. May sound silly but the Chinese companies have been getting a lot of traction recently e.g. P30 Pro.
Doesn't sound silly at all. I have a Xiaomi Mi Mix 2S and it's an amazingly good phone for the price (replaced my Google Pixel 2, which I liked enough). I'll absolutely buy a Chinese phone to replace this phone when it's time in a few years, or at least look into it. Other people constantly ask about the phone (has a striking reflective ceramic back) and haven't heard of Chinese phones, but are considering alternatives in droves due to the insane prices of flagships by Apple and Samsung.
You can save a decent amount of money buying phones from brands that don't pay for their own R&D.
It doesn't take much R&D to assemble a Qualcomm chipset, an LG display panel, a Sony imaging sensor and some Samsung memory into a phone, nor does it require any kind of reverse-engineering or industrial espionage. The latest flagship phones might use semi-custom components, but midrange handsets are just commodity parts.
Lot of assumptions baked in here, but the major Chinese manufacturers are not the only ones doing that by a long shot, if that's your complaint.
Additionally, the amount of cash Apple has on hand doesn't strike me as people plunging a major amount of their cash reserves into R&D. Much the opposite, actually.
Additionally, the amount of cash Apple has on hand doesn't strike me as people plunging a major amount of their cash reserves into R&D. Much the opposite, actually.
The're expanding R&D very rapidly, quadrupling their spend on it over the last 6 years. For a mature company with an already well established product development operation that's pretty astounding. It's just that they became so immensely profitable so fast, their profits in absolute numbers still dwarf it.
Why do they still sell on US soil? If they'd violated some patent, couldn't the original author get them banned?
Patent litigation is complex and expensive. Also, often a lot of innovations are still patent pending due to the time it takes to get them registered.
Can't you send some preliminary request based on pending patent? Also, Huawei and Xiaomu have been getting stronger in US market for years now.
Expensive? We are talking about $1T company here. I can't imagine they are unable to afford litigation in their core business space.
Basically, until somebody shows they violated some patent(s), these claimes about stolen tech are just a smere campaign. I don't understand why Huawei won't sue for it.
Expensive? We are talking about $1T company here. I can't imagine they are unable to afford litigation in their core business space.
Basically, until somebody shows they violated some patent(s), these claimes about stolen tech are just a smere campaign. I don't understand why Huawei won't sue for it.
They could have just licensed the patents?
I guess that's why there aren't too many Chinese made phones sold in the US.
And tons of annoying ads.
not only that but... people trust chinese phones with a chinese OS? i mean, if they steal R&D, what are the chances they are also stealing your data?
I meant the copiers generally spend less (probably much less than Samsung) on building a brand. Again more value for your money.
I own a Pocophone F1, made by Xiaomi. It supposedly has one of the better UIs by default, but I found it pretty insufferable.
Then again: The terrible software (with some ads) probably again subsidizes the device's price. No joke, the device with absolutely high-end specs cost me about 300€.
The bootloader unlocking process is an insult (you have to have a Xiaomi account, verify your e-mail address, link it to your device, install their windows-only software, then wait 3 days [most of those steps took me multiple reboots to get figured out correctly]), but after that it is absolutely smooth to install the Android distribution of your choice - and there's a lot of it.
I made sure not to do any banking on it before replacing the software, but afterwards it's probably more trustworthy than stock software of any non-chinese vendor.
Of course if we're talking about stock chinese software ..... yeah, I wouldn't trust that, even on their 'global' versions, that aren't government guaranteed to spy on their users.
I own a Pocophone F1, made by Xiaomi. It supposedly has one of the better UIs by default, but I found it pretty insufferable.
Then again: The terrible software (with some ads) probably again subsidizes the device's price. No joke, the device with absolutely high-end specs cost me about 300€.
The bootloader unlocking process is an insult (you have to have a Xiaomi account, verify your e-mail address, link it to your device, install their windows-only software, then wait 3 days [most of those steps took me multiple reboots to get figured out correctly]), but after that it is absolutely smooth to install the Android distribution of your choice - and there's a lot of it.
I made sure not to do any banking on it before replacing the software, but afterwards it's probably more trustworthy than stock software of any non-chinese vendor.
Of course if we're talking about stock chinese software ..... yeah, I wouldn't trust that, even on their 'global' versions, that aren't government guaranteed to spy on their users.
>> people trust chinese phones with a chinese OS?
No, wiping and installing stock Android is not that difficult, which is what I've done. Also, you drastically overestimate how interested Chinese manufacturers are in additional data [0] of random Americans.
[0]: Considering that all smartphone companies steal your data in some form, I doubt Xiaomi is stealing significantly more, really.
No, wiping and installing stock Android is not that difficult, which is what I've done. Also, you drastically overestimate how interested Chinese manufacturers are in additional data [0] of random Americans.
[0]: Considering that all smartphone companies steal your data in some form, I doubt Xiaomi is stealing significantly more, really.
Huawei is one of the largest R&D spenders in the world. Perhaps time to stop regurgitating nonsense?
> Doesn't sound silly at all
I have to agree. Here in the UK, Huawei regularly advertise on TV now (often just after a Samsung ad!), and the name "Xiaomi" is becoming more recognised.
Aside from brand recognition, they make some great devices that are cheaper than those from Samsung and Apple.
When it comes time to replace my S7, I'll certainly be looking seriously at Huawei and Xiaomi.
I have to agree. Here in the UK, Huawei regularly advertise on TV now (often just after a Samsung ad!), and the name "Xiaomi" is becoming more recognised.
Aside from brand recognition, they make some great devices that are cheaper than those from Samsung and Apple.
When it comes time to replace my S7, I'll certainly be looking seriously at Huawei and Xiaomi.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/briefing/2018...
Huawei makes a lot of the equipment for installations like this.
How do you reconcile that?
Huawei makes a lot of the equipment for installations like this.
How do you reconcile that?
Plenty of American companies facilitate surveillance and censorship.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424584/new-evidence-that-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/surveillance-and-censorship-ins...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424584/new-evidence-that-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/surveillance-and-censorship-ins...
Of course. There's also the famous case of IBM supplying the Nazi party.
How does this address Huawei ...?
How does this address Huawei ...?
Huawei is a huge organisation, so it's fair to say that not everyone who works there is involved in mass surveillance, and not everyone is hell-bent on creating an Orwellian nightmare.
Furthermore, many western companies (e.g. Cisco) have been called out for being involved with "dodgy" things like mass surveillance in countries in the Middle East and Asia - but also in western countries too.
IMO it makes to sense to boycott Huawei any more than it makes sense to boycott Cisco.
And if you meant in a "red danger" sense, as opposed to just Huawei, then I think it's safe to say the west is well on its way down the slippery slope to mass surveillance and over-reaching powers - the press likes to make a big deal of how evil China is, but completely ignores what goes on at home.
Furthermore, many western companies (e.g. Cisco) have been called out for being involved with "dodgy" things like mass surveillance in countries in the Middle East and Asia - but also in western countries too.
IMO it makes to sense to boycott Huawei any more than it makes sense to boycott Cisco.
And if you meant in a "red danger" sense, as opposed to just Huawei, then I think it's safe to say the west is well on its way down the slippery slope to mass surveillance and over-reaching powers - the press likes to make a big deal of how evil China is, but completely ignores what goes on at home.
"Other companies do bad things, too" is whataboutism and doesn't really address this one, though.
The very site you linked to (Google's butchering of the web via AMP) supported Project Maven explicitly and then implicitly by laundering their work through a contractor. Save your outrage.
[deleted]
Not everybody disagrees with that, and even if they do they may not care enough not to buy Huawei equipment.
The technology is bendable screens, that have been around in testing labs for years. LG released a folding tv last year.
"First foldable phone to market, take that Huawei!" probably sums up the entirety of the decision making process regarding whether to release or not.
>After two days of intense public interest, iFixit has removed our teardown of Samsung’s Galaxy Fold.
But... you are ifixit?
But... you are ifixit?
This is just phrasing.
Read as "We at iFixit have"...
Read as "We at iFixit have"...
Then it shouldn't mix first and third person in the same sentence. "ifixit (they) have removed our review". Makes no sense. It sounds like they are two different entities.
The author of this blog post is speaking as a representative of iFixit.
If you were authorized to represent CBRZY Inc, you could write a blog post and include the phrase "CBRZY Inc have published our comment suggesting that a representative writing for us shouldn't speak in third person." without sounding awkward.
If you were authorized to represent CBRZY Inc, you could write a blog post and include the phrase "CBRZY Inc have published our comment suggesting that a representative writing for us shouldn't speak in third person." without sounding awkward.
Then the post should not be anonymously signed as "ifixit staff".
<shrug>
So something got posted online without first consulting Grammarly. It's just a venial sin, not a mortal one.
So something got posted online without first consulting Grammarly. It's just a venial sin, not a mortal one.
ifixit.org may have people not on board with ifixit.com
You don't need to be first, Apple has repeatedly claimed to have the first of its kind but it was always just a clever rebrand of an existing technology. Sure somethings they did do first but sometimes it takes Apple years to adopt something and they will still claim they did it first.
I actually don't care who does it first. Its who does it best that matters.