The A in Apple is for Affordable
-
@TimeBandit said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
All of my points still stand.
The Samsung Galaxy S5 is waterproof and with a user-replaceable battery.
Does that mean that Samsung's hardware designers are better than the ones working for Apple?
The Samsung Galaxy S7 is waterproof, and has a headphone jack. When Apple removed the headphone jack, they cited waterproofing as their chief issue. So yeah.
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@TimeBandit said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The Samsung Galaxy S5 is waterproof
It's water resistant (although that's presumably what @kt_ meant). Until the cover for the charging slot breaks off after like a week.
What do you mean, cover for the charging slot?
-
@TimeBandit said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
you can easily shape the battery in a "weird" way.
iPhone 5
iPhone6
iPhone 7
iPhone 8
You're right
Weird, why are they all rectangles??? Why aren't they cylinders??!
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@TimeBandit said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The Samsung Galaxy S5 is waterproof
It's water resistant (although that's presumably what @kt_ meant). Until the cover for the charging slot breaks off after like a week.
What do you mean, cover for the charging slot?
Yeah, I modded my S4A for wireless charging specifically to avoid opening the USB port cover.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Oh, an outer cover. Well, the S7 doesn't have a cover, and it's still waterproof. If it's wet and you plug it in, it just won't charge, and it'll pop up a toaster telling you to dry it off before charging it.
-
@TimeBandit said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
All of my points still stand.
The Samsung Galaxy S5 is waterproof and with a user-replaceable battery.
Never said it was impossible. Said it was easier. I think there were some Sony phones that ware waterproof that had user-replaceable battery.
Does that mean that Samsung's hardware designers are better than the ones working for Apple?
Nope. When doing design, you have to compromise. You need the phone to have feature X and Y while looking Z or thereabouts. You might trade user-replaceability of a component to get something else. It's a design choice. Gosh, sometimes I feel like I'm explaining the world to a 6 yo!
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@TimeBandit said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
All of my points still stand.
The Samsung Galaxy S5 is waterproof and with a user-replaceable battery.
Does that mean that Samsung's hardware designers are better than the ones working for Apple?
The Samsung Galaxy S7 is waterproof, and has a headphone jack. When Apple removed the headphone jack, they cited waterproofing as their chief issue. So yeah.
Yeah, but they didn't mean that jack can't be made waterproof. They meant they needed the space.
Just eyeballing it, the headphone jack in the 6S probably takes up about 10% of the bezel space in the entire phone. (I’m talking about the entire jack assembly—the big whiteish piece in the bottom left—not just the shaft itself.) The only larger bezel components are the speaker, the rear camera, and possibly the earpiece.
Think of real world places with very valuable real estate. In Manhattan, a not-so-profitable gas station occupying a parcel of very expensive land will often be bulldozed to make way for a tall building full of lucrative offices or condos. The inside of an iPhone is valuable real estate, and these bezel areas are especially scarce. Parts that aren’t providing enough value are likely to get bulldozed.
Waterproofing takes a lot of space—especially when it demands a new Taptic Engine. Here’s a similar image of the bottom bezel area of the iPhone 7. You might notice that most of the components are completely different:
The Taptic Engine is much larger and is partially behind the new, non-mechanical Home button. The Home button change is probably both for waterproofing (it’s hard to seal all of those seams) and for reliability (broken Home buttons are another common repair—or at least people think they are); an impulse from the Taptic Engine is now used to make the non-mechanical button “click” the way the old one did.
But the new Taptic Engine protrudes into the space previously taken up by the headphone jack; I estimate it covers about a quarter of the jack’s depth, depending on the purpose of the three prongs just below the Taptic Engine’s main body. And it has to be there, in the bottom left of the phone; it must be near the Home button, and the speaker’s on the right side.
I realize the above is a reposted answer from Quora, so here:
When the headphone jack was removed, Apple realized it was easier to install the new Taptic Engine for the pressure-sensitive Home button, implement a bigger battery, and reach an IP7 water resistance rating, so the elimination of the headphone jack became essential for all of the other features in the iPhone 7.
Source: https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/07/apple-explains-headphone-jack-removal/
Also, found this interesting read: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack#.ak22qxVQA
-
@dkf said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
You're not limited to it having to always be at the very back, so that it can be swapped.
The battery usually is at the back anyway because the screen is at the front and those two things make up almost all of the bulk of the phone.
That's correct, yes. I was trying to create an exhaustive list of the reasons, so this point had to go there. ;)
-
-
@kt_ The S7 also beat the iPhone of the time on battery life and didn't have any problems with people cracking the mechanical home button.
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@Tsaukpaetra Oh, an outer cover. Well, the S7 doesn't have a cover, and it's still waterproof. If it's wet and you plug it in, it just won't charge, and it'll pop up a toaster telling you to dry it off before charging it.
Water resistant.
The S5 has a normal open headphone jack so no idea why they thought it was necessary to cover the charging port.
-
@loopback0 IP68. By definition waterproof, since the 8 means there's no time limit to the resistance. The iPhone 7 was IP67, so the same protection as the S7 but only for thirty minutes, and thus actually fits the "water resistant" .
-
@kt_ anyway metal or glass are not exactly genius materials for a phone (which is carried around at all times). Glass shatters, metal dents and scratches. Meanwhile, good polycarbonate plastic as used on old Nokia phones is attractive, grippy enough, cheap to replace probably and flexible so that it may survive lots of impacts a phone is normally subjected to (and which cause visible damage in other materials). If you use a case over your phone, like most people do, it can be made of platinum, it doesn't really matter does it? As for waterproofing, that's not a reason and you know it, considering you then justified Apple's choice first by saying "it's an engineering compromise!" then realise this made you look like a fool (because that's not a good enough reason for a company which ostensibly shuns compromise and commands those very high prices), and somehow I'm not even convinced by the "space is a premium" justification. Not even their Plus versions feature a headphone jack, but most components are the same size regardless of outer dimensions of the phone.
Apple simply wants to capitalise on either Lightning or their sort-of Bluetooth standard. But I suppose I could still say that Apple can suck my knob.
-
@pie_flavor 30 minutes sounds like a time limit to me.
The IP68 dust- and water-resistance Ingress Protection rating means your device is completely protected against dust, and it is water-resistant in up to 5 feet of water for up to 30 minutes.
edit: the difference between IP67 and 68 is the depth of water.
-
@Zerosquare said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ : https://www.idownloadblog.com/2017/09/07/adding-a-working-3-5mm-headphone-jack-to-iphone-7/
Interesting. It's a long video, so I CBA, but at the end he never tells how does water-resistance compare between his home-made thing and the original. Is it still IP67?
-
@loopback0 Depending on water depth. They say thirty minutes resistance under five meters of water, but their IP68 rating means that it is totally waterproof under one meter or less of water. The iPhone 7 is resistant to thirty minutes under even one meter of water.
-
@admiral_p said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
Not even their Plus versions feature a headphone jack, but most components are the same size regardless of outer dimensions of the phone.
The rest of your post is just ranting of a madman, but I am going to respond to this one. Apple is known for making premium phones. The only difference between a regular iPhone and a Plus was the camera and battery life. It wouldn't be a good idea to add another differentiation to a well-established line-up.
I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just explaining world to you. You're welcome.
-
@kt_ you're free to suck my knob too. Give me some time though, I'm not twenty any more.
-
@admiral_p said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ you're free to suck my knob too. Give me some time though, I'm not twenty any more.
Yeah, and you no longer have your knob at all. Or did you mean a doorknob? Cause I'm sure there are none in the place you're living right now.
-
@pie_flavor No, they're still both water resistant.
-
@kt_ we use handles over here.
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
No, they're still both water resistant.
their knobs?
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@loopback0 Depending on water depth. They say thirty minutes resistance under five meters of water, but their IP68 rating means that it is totally waterproof under one meter or less of water. The iPhone 7 is resistant to thirty minutes under even one meter of water.
How? Where did you get that information from? It doesn't say that on the Samsung page, Wikipedia doesn't corroborate that.
8 | Immersion, 1 m or more depth | The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion.
-
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
Apple is known for making premium phones.
Not that they actually do; they're just known for it. Among iPhone users, anyway. Android users not so much.
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@pie_flavor No, they're still both water resistant.
Waterproof means there's no time limit. The S7 is waterproof under one meter or less of water. The iPhone 7 is not.
Edit: if I'm wrong about the meter part, so be it. The point is that there is a depth that the S7 is waterproof at, and there isn't one for the iPhone 7. The harmless entry part of the spec is meaningless because there is no harmless entry in a phone.
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@pie_flavor No, they're still both water resistant.
Waterproof means there's no time limit. The S7 is waterproof under one meter or less of water. The iPhone 7 is not.
Edit: if I'm wrong about the meter part, so be it. The point is that there is a depth that the S7 is waterproof at, and there isn't one for the iPhone 7.You're so full of shit!
In the tests, which you can watch for yourself below, all four superphones are submerged in 5 feet (1.5 m) of water for 30 minutes. Both new Galaxy phones still functioned just fine once dried off, but with audio permanently muffled and distorted.
Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s7-not-quite-waterproof-torture-tests-reveal/
And iPhone 7 is IP67. Again, from Wikipedia:
7 - Immersion, up to 1 m depth - Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion). - Test duration: 30 minutes - ref IEC 60529, table 8.
So the difference between those two was half a meter.
So fuck you.
-
@kt_ Did you know that engineering is an exact science, and not just "smear it on till there's no red paint showing"? Show me tests involving <1m. And, again, there must be a depth it's waterproof at as is the literal definition of IP*8. So you've been wrong this whole time anyway.
-
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
So fuck you.
No thanks, but if you're offering I hear @admiral_p is looking for someone.
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The point is that there is a depth that the S7 is waterproof at, and there isn't one for the iPhone 7.
That's not how the specification works and you're claiming something not even the manufacturer claims.
IP68 is better than IP67, no-one's disagreeing there.@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
there must be a depth it's waterproof at as is the literal definition of IP*8
Literally not.
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@kt_ Did you know that engineering is an exact science, and not just "smear it on till there's no red paint showing"? Show me tests involving <1m. And, again, there must be a depth it's waterproof at as is the literal definition of IP*8. So you've been wrong this whole time anyway.
Holy shit, just look at the table I've been talking about!
Here you have info about what the second number in IP code means. Respectively 7 and 8:
- 7 - Immersion, up to 1 m depth- Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion). - Test duration: 30 minutes - ref IEC 60529, table 8.
- 8 - Immersion, 1 m or more depth - The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion. - Test duration: Agreement with Manufacturer
Now from the Samsung's website:
The IP68 dust- and water-resistance Ingress Protection rating means your device is completely protected against dust, and it is water-resistant in up to 5 feet of water for up to 30 minutes.
Now the quote I just pulled:
In the tests, which you can watch for yourself below, all four superphones are submerged in 5 feet (1.5 m) of water for 30 minutes. Both new Galaxy phones still functioned just fine once dried off, but with audio permanently muffled and distorted.
Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s7-not-quite-waterproof-torture-tests-reveal/
To sum up: the difference between iPhone 7 and Galaxy S7 was IP67 vs. IP68. IP67 means that the phone needs to be resistant when immersed up to 1 m for 30 minutes. IP68 means that it can be immersed up to 5 feet with time limit "agreed upon with the manufacturer". Samsung says on their website it's 30 minutes. Someone tested it and after 30 minutes it lost sound quality.
Now, to sum up:
- The difference between water-resistance between iPhone 7 and Galaxy S7 was supposed to be around half a meter. The time limit on both is the same.
- It seems that Galaxy S7 didn't hold up to the standard at all times. It doesn't really matter, I'm not a "stress test" buff. I bet S7's water resistance was still good.
There you go: everything backed up by sources. Now show me your sources for the following:
- S7 is water-resistant with no time limit when immersed up to 1m.
- There is no point of water-resistance for iPhone 7.
- The post where I said that there is no depth limit at which a phone needs to be water-resistance to get the IP classification.
-
@admiral_p said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
I say stuff, but you read something else.
No, you have a great history of saying stupid stuff and then saying you didn't really mean what you said.
-
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The time limit on both is the same.
I'm sorry but to my reading your own Wikipedia quote disagrees on this (emphasis mine):
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
Here you have info about what the second number in IP code means. Respectively 7 and 8:
7 - Immersion, up to 1 m depth- Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion). - Test duration: 30 minutes - ref IEC 60529, table 8.
8 - Immersion, 1 m or more depth - The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion. - Test duration: Agreement with ManufacturerPurely from what's been quoted here, I would understand "continuous immersion" to mean "without time limit". So IP68 promises "you can keep this thing stored in water for as long as you want" while IP67 promises "you can chuck this thing into water for half an hour but then you better take it back out".
The test duration is obviously not infinite, But:
- This is not what the IP code promises, only how the manufacturer should verify that the promise holds. The promise for IP68 is "continuous immersion".
- Even the test duration is supposed to be "longer" for IP68 than for IP67 (whatever that means, but it certainly does mean "not the same").
-
@ixvedeusi Continuous does not mean indefinitely.
The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer.
I have also highlighted a bit you missed. The manufacturer's specification has been listed at least twice already.
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
a bit you missed
Didn't miss that, but my interpretation of "continuous immersion" would preclude limitations on time under that bit. As you suggest, I might be wrong with my interpretation, but going full- on that line of thinking, any definition of IP68 which would match both the Wikipedia and Samsung definitions of IP68 would be completely meaningless:
- "Continuous immersion" does not imply duration, so duration can be defined in "manufacturer's conditions". Wikipedia does not provide any minimum duration.
- Test duration is "expected to be" more than for IP67 but doesn't have to be. Samsung does not claim a longer duration (they claim the same duration), so apparently I can just completely ignore this.
Thus, I could make a device which is can be "continuously immersed" for 5 picoseconds (manufacturer's condition) but no longer, and it would be IP68. So I maintain that @kt_ 's post does not show what it claims to show, because it's either contradictory or ambiguous.
-
@ixvedeusi It's without interruption, not without ending.
I could dunk the phone in water for 30 minutes, take it out, put it back in for another 30 minutes, take it out again, put it back in for another 30 minutes.
90 minutes immersion, but not continuous immersion.
-
Can I ask a naive question?
What's the use case for submerging your smartphone for more than 30 minutes, no matter what the depth?
If you accidentally drop it into water (or want to wash it in the sink for some reason), you won't need more than a minute or so.
If you want to take pictures while snorkeling or scuba diving, a smartphone isn't a good choice anyways.
-
@Zerosquare Impressing people at parties.
-
@admiral_p said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
Glass shatters, metal dents and scratches. Meanwhile, good polycarbonate plastic as used on old Nokia phones is attractive, grippy enough, cheap to replace probably and flexible so that it may survive lots of impacts a phone is normally subjected to (and which cause visible damage in other materials).
I miss the self-healing soft-touch plastic used on old HTC phones. It looked pretty good, felt great in the hand, and the phone didn't slide everywhere when you set it down. But on the other hand, dbrand has been doing great recently
-
@pie_flavor said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@Tsaukpaetra Oh, an outer cover. Well, the S7 doesn't have a cover, and it's still waterproof. If it's wet and you plug it in, it just won't charge, and it'll pop up a toaster telling you to dry it off before charging it.
I switched to Qi charging because my S7 always thinks its wet and won't charge over USB anymore. I guess that restriction doesn't apply to wireless charging.
-
@Zerosquare said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
Can I ask a naive question?
What's the use case for submerging your smartphone for more than 30 minutes, no matter what the depth?
If you accidentally drop it into water (or want to wash it in the sink for some reason), you won't need more than a minute or so.
If you want to take pictures while snorkeling or scuba diving, a smartphone isn't a good choice anyways.
The most practical use for a waterproof phone to me is that it doesn't die when I end up in an unforecasted rainstorm on highway motorcycle trips.
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
It's without interruption, not without ending.
Yes. My point is I can either take that literally to mean "without interruption for an arbitrary limit of time" which makes the whole IP68 classification meaningless, or non-pedantically to mean "without interruption for unlimited time" which contradicts kt_'s claim. The interpretation of "exactly the same as for IP67" is IMHO the one which makes the least sense, and thus the quote does not support the point made.
-
@ixvedeusi said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
a bit you missed
Didn't miss that, but my interpretation of "continuous immersion" would preclude limitations on time under that bit. As you suggest, I might be wrong with my interpretation, but going full- on that line of thinking, any definition of IP68 which would match both the Wikipedia and Samsung definitions of IP68 would be completely meaningless:
- "Continuous immersion" does not imply duration, so duration can be defined in "manufacturer's conditions". Wikipedia does not provide any minimum duration.
- Test duration is "expected to be" more than for IP67 but doesn't have to be. Samsung does not claim a longer duration (they claim the same duration), so apparently I can just completely ignore this.
Thus, I could make a device which is can be "continuously immersed" for 5 picoseconds (manufacturer's condition) but no longer, and it would be IP68. So I maintain that @kt_ 's post does not show what it claims to show, because it's either contradictory or ambiguous.
XS is IP68 and it promises 5 feet for 30 minutes. I understand this line the same as @loopback0. Plus, still no base for the claim that Galaxy S7 can do 1m indefinitely.
-
@ixvedeusi the standard name is iec 60529. If you can find the actual spec, we can argue. I can't, it seems it's not freely available online. However, everybody that reports on this one interprets 8 to be "at least half an hour", which makes perfect sense. Unless you can prove me wrong, I'm gonna go with that interpretation.
-
@ixvedeusi said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The interpretation of "exactly the same as for IP67" is IMHO the one which makes the least sense, and thus the quote does not support the point made.
No-one has interpreted it like that so .
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@ixvedeusi said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The interpretation of "exactly the same as for IP67" is IMHO the one which makes the least sense, and thus the quote does not support the point made.
No-one has interpreted it like that so .
Hmmm… this is interesting. Found this document:
http://sst.ws/downloads/Ingress-Protection-iss-4.pdf
And it states there:
8 - Protected against long periods of immersion under pressure - user stated requirement
TBH, it really does seem that means "better than 7 and fits the client's requirements".
-
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
No-one has interpreted it like that so .
...ok, guess I must have misunderstood when @kt_ said:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The time limit on both is the same.
-
@ixvedeusi Yes, he was referring to the 30 minutes quoted by Samsung for the S7 being the same as the 30 minutes quoted by Apple for the 7.
-
@ixvedeusi said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
@loopback0 said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
No-one has interpreted it like that so .
...ok, guess I must have misunderstood when @kt_ said:
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
The time limit on both is the same.
Actually, if you wanna , then let's .
Read my post in its entirety and you'll see:
To sum up: the difference between iPhone 7 and Galaxy S7 was IP67 vs. IP68. IP67 means that the phone needs to be resistant when immersed up to 1 m for 30 minutes. IP68 means that it can be immersed up to 5 feet with time limit "agreed upon with the manufacturer". **Samsung says on their website it's 30 minutes. **
Then take a look at what I'm comparing in the sentence with "time limit is the same". I'm comparing S7 to 7. Not IP67 to IP68 specifically.
QED.
:drop:
-
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
I'm comparing S7 to 7. Not IP67 to IP68 specifically.
Yes but just above you said
@kt_ said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
To sum up: the difference between iPhone 7 and Galaxy S7 was IP67 vs. IP68.
So comparing S7 to 7 is comparing IP67 to IP68 in this context
Sorry for dragging this on. I'll do my best to calm down my inner now.
-
@Zerosquare said in The A in Apple is for Affordable:
Can I ask a naive question?
What's the use case for submerging your smartphone for more than 30 minutes, no matter what the depth?Probably leaving it in a pocket when you do your laundry. Obviously, times will vary, but I suspect you're unlikely to have a wash or rinse cycle longer than that.