Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Numbers not adding up... (Score 1) 109

The percentages are percentages of the 58% of failing devices. Of the devices that failed, 29% were iPhone 6, 23% were the 6s, and 14% were the 6s Plus. Add those together and we're missing the final 33% of failed devices but it's safe to assume that a random collection of 6 Plus, 5SE, 5s, 5c, etc. make up that final 33% of the 58%.

So let me see if I understand this epic math fail correctly. Given n devices, there were k devices that were brought in for repair. Of those k devices, 58% were iOS devices, and of those 58%, 29% were iPhone 6 devices.

Which tells us absolutely nothing about the actual failure rate without knowing how the makeup of those n devices relates to the makeup of those k devices. It tells us nothing about the actual failure rate without knowing what percentage of each model within k were junked and replaced without notifying the service center in question. It tells us nothing about whether the Android and iOS users have similar levels of self-sufficiency in terms of figuring out how to solve their own problems. And there are probably at least three or four other fairly fundamental errors that make this data essentially pure noise.

Arguments over minor methodology points, such as whether to count specific types of failures in the reliability numbers, are basically moot, because the "data" is purely anecdotal and is not mathematically related to the actual rate of failure to begin with. This isn't statistically any better than saying, "Of my friends, more people have had problems with Android phones than iOS phones" or vice versa. If you know nothing about whether the sample population has similar distribution to the general population and you know nothing about whether the data is even an accurate measurement of the sample population itself, then these numbers are quite literally no better than a random number generator with a Gaussian distribution. You might as well arrive at the results by throwing darts at a dartboard. It will be approximately as meaningful.

Am I missing something?

Trust me, if even 1% of iPhone hardware failed during its warranty period, heads would roll, much less 58%.

Comment Re:is it worth the upgrade? (Score 1) 150

As a 6D user, in my experience, the Wi-Fi is really nice if you're part of a group trip. You can have your cell phone out, and once in a while when there's a pause, you can snag a photo off your real camera and upload it to Facebook so that the folks back home can see what you're all doing. It's much easier than trying to take photos with two devices at once, because the extra time spent fiddling with your phone is while you're on a bus riding somewhere or whatever instead of while you're out sightseeing on a schedule.

It is also occasionally useful if you don't have (or forgot to bring) a remote controlled trigger release. You can use it to see what the camera sees (in live view/EVF mode) and tell it to take photos, albeit with a lot of shutter lag. With the dual-pixel AF in the 5D Mark IV, it should be even better because you'll have actual phase-detection autofocus with continuous focusing in live view mode instead of contrast-detection AF.

Comment Re:5 years old news ? (Score 1) 150

Canon puts the stabilization in the lens for a good reason. Sensor-based stabilization is only useful on point-and-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders. As soon as you have an optical path to your eye, sensor-based stabilization is worthless, because it won't help you frame the shot. By contrast, lens-based stabilization locks the image in place so that you can actually see what you're taking a picture of.

This makes a huge difference even at 300mm. By 600mm, you'd be hard pressed to ever get a shot of anything without lens-based optical stabilization.

Comment Re:Pixels density (Score 2) 150

Except that it doesn't, because it doesn't. The 5D Mark IV sensor uses a gapless microlens array. There are no boundaries between the pixels, period. All light that hits the sensor's surface goes into the sensor except for any that gets reflected when it hits the surface.

Comment Re:Pixels density (Score 2) 150

True but the image will always suffer from less thermal noise on an equivalent sensor with larger photosites.

Realistically, thermal noise is almost irrelevant except for long-exposure photography (e.g. astrophotography). For normal photographic purposes, it's the shot noise that kills you in low light. When the difference between one and zero photons makes a visually noticeable difference in the resulting value, individual pixels are going to have noticeably different values than the pixels next to them even when they're getting approximately the same amount of light, because a pixel either gets the photon or it doesn't.

But that shot noise basically goes away when you downsample. If you double the number of pixels, a "pixel crop" (one pixel on the individual photo to one pixel on your screen) will give you more noise on the one with smaller sites, but it will also be looking at a much smaller area. If you crop them to cover the same area and average the signals, you'll find that the same number of photons hit both sensors and were detected, so the result is approximately the same, with the exception of the small amount of loss caused by the wiring around the pixels. And by the time that starts to become significant, you're roughly at cell phone pixel densities, and you're either doing back-side illumination, microlens arrays, or both to get rid of that problem.

Comment Re:Stagnant? (Score 1) 146

I was just looking at this article which points out that Apple's R&D has gone up many times over since Job's passed on...

The thing is, that's usually a bad sign. It means that your development teams are growing very quickly, which has two effects:

  • The median age/experience level drops precipitously, resulting in poorer output quality.
  • The amount of effort required to maintain the products designed by more people grows by the square of the number of people involved.

Eventually you reach a point where every additional person makes the product worse or more delayed, rather than better or faster. These days, I keep getting the feeling that Apple passed that point a while back, and they just haven't noticed yet. This is one reason why innovative ideas almost invariably come from small companies, not big ones.

The other reason is that the larger Apple grows, the harder it will be to innovate, because the breakage caused by doing so will become an ever bigger problem as the code base increases in size. At some point, it will be necessary for Apple to start over from scratch—probably by buying a company that creates some innovative alternative. At that point, it will have fully become Microsoft or IBM. And that's okay. Eventually, somebody else will come along and become the next Apple. It's the circle of life.

Comment Re:Sterilized long ago (Score 2) 208

In our solar system only moons are tidally locked to planets, but no planets to stars.

Mercury comes pretty close with its 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. It spins 3 times for every 2 orbits. That's close enough to being tidally locked that the difference is mostly moot from a "cooked on one side" perspective.

Comment Re:There is no "removing" of anything... (Score 3, Interesting) 381

If the new phone doesn't have a headphone jack, it'll be all over the Internet. There will be almost no way to avoid knowing that the iPhone 7 doesn't have a headphone jack.

That's not where the user impact comes in. Most people don't use headphones constantly. They use them occasionally. And they will think to themselves, "That's not a big deal." Then, at some point in the distant future:

  • They're at a friend's house and want to play some song. Their friend has an Android phone, and a stereo with only an 1/8" plug.
  • They're out somewhere and think, "I'd like to listen to some music while I walk from A to B" and then realize that their Bluetooth earbuds aren't charged.
  • The stewardess tells them that they can't use wireless headsets (that's a per-airline policy decision) and offers to sell them a headset for $3, but oops, no adapter.

And so on. And suddenly, what seemed like it didn't matter suddenly matters, and you have a pissed off customer.

Comment Re:Fix Apple (Score 1) 381

Apple will do no fixes of anything until it learns its lesson with very bad iPhone 7 sales because of the removal of the 3.5mm audio jack.

What would be worse for Apple would be if they don't lose sales, because there's definitely a non-negligible percentage of their customers who will be negatively impacted significantly by removal of the headphone jack, and if those folks buy the phone anyway, then they're going to end up with a bad impression of Apple products, and Apple will lose them as customers. In the long run, Apple should hope that they lose those sales, because at least they'll have a chance to make up those sales by releasing a future generation that isn't missing critical features.

The ultimate destruction of Apple as a brand of amazing hardware will come if they ship a device without a headphone jack and 30% of their users don't realize how much they'll miss the headphone jack, buy the phone anyway, and then start trash-talking their new iPhone on social media before switching (permanently) to Android. If Apple ships this product, I may start doing covered calls on my Apple stock to limit my losses. As a user, this is just a big annoyance, and I'm hopeful that they'll pull their heads out of their a**es before I'm due for a new phone. But as an investor, this is absolutely terrifying, oddly reminiscent of the period where a certain Pepsi exec was running the show.

Comment Re:Cat got my tongue (subjects are dumb) (Score 1) 38

Question 1: Who the hell reuses passwords, and why? Anyone left not using password managers?

Statistically, almost everyone:

  • Anyone who created at least one account more than a few years ago and has continued using it without changing his/her password
  • Anyone who is using a site that doesn't support the browser's build-in password manager (usually by not showing a username field)

There are probably others, but most users have at least a few sites that use shared passwords, and most of them are the fault of the people who designed the websites.

Slashdot Top Deals

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.