geordie81, 17 Feb 2020The 3.5mm jack argument is old time to move on, people have adapted, the markets have changed,... moreI've actually tried Bluetooth earphones from good companies, and in terms of quality, they suck. But not all. Money is the factor.
Let me put it like this:- To get quality of a $20 wired ear, you'll have to get a $100-200 bluetooth one, and still might not match.
If by "Time to adapt", you mean "Adaptor", then that's still the way forward instead of Bluetooth, because it is giving quality, I'd have to admit... the only thing, its a hassle, we can (I admit again) somewhat live with.
I don't want to get a stereo system separately when a phone can do 90% of it for me.
The best of Androids & iPhones do a damn good job against a common $200 standalone MP3/FLAC music player.
Who'd want to lug around 2 devices?
Mapantz, 18 Feb 2020But the display isn't just "glass" is it? That's exactly the point you and many others are fai... moreSo first you were saying the screen isn't glass, and now your saying it isnt only glass??? No sir, the debate was whether UTG should be called glass because it doesn't have the same strength, as regular glass which is impossible given its thickness, but if your moving the goal posts then sure, the screen is not only glass, but the original argument is that it isn't glass under the screen and you don't care what its called because it isn't glass, but it is :-)
Mapantz, 18 Feb 2020You: "There's no plastic" Except there's more plastic than glass. :)I have not said, not once, there's no plastic. That's the voices in your head.
Duck of death, 18 Feb 2020You: "There's no glass! (Except for the glass)." End of.You: "There's no plastic" Except there's more plastic than glass. :)
Mapantz, 18 Feb 2020You really do have an aversion to plastic, don't you?You: "There's no glass! (Except for the glass)."
[deleted post]You really do have an aversion to plastic, don't you?
Duck of death, 18 Feb 2020Look at other teardowns than the clickbait troll, Zach. It is glass. Period.lol!
So we should ignore the 95% plastic that covers it, then? lol Well played, sir. Well played!
Duck of death, 18 Feb 2020It is glass. Check any YouTuber who isn't as corrupt as JerryRigsEverything.
It's even in his... moreYou're one of those conspiracist people, aren't you?
Samsung have been caught bending the truth again. This time, it's regarding the brushes in the hinge to keep the dust out.
If you watch their presentation, it shows animations of brushes running all the way along the inside of the hinge. However, the teardown shows 2 tiny little brush at either end, nothing like what Samsung have shown.
That and their failed terminology regarding "glass screen" should be looked at by a consumer watchdog, because they are seriously misleading people.
Give it a few weeks, they'll be a lot of videos on YouTube showing failed displays on the Z Flip.
Not glass, 18 Feb 2020It's not glass , check YouTube video jerryrigIt is glass. Check any YouTuber who isn't as corrupt as JerryRigsEverything.
It's even in his channel name. He sells faked scratch test to create fake outrage and ad revenue.
geordie81, 18 Feb 2020i understand completely, its called UTG for a reason, it is ultra thin glass, made in such a w... moreBut the display isn't just "glass" is it? That's exactly the point you and many others are failing to see.
Naima Kennedy, 18 Feb 2020I think they made the same false marketing as Apple did when claiming their glass was made of ... morethe screen damage from the jerryrig tests is to the protective outer layer not the actual glass underneath, this has been confirmed in teardowns, its the same protective layer that was on the galaxy fold that people mistook for a temporary screen protector, the real damage has come from the shattering of the glass during the flip action either on the top edges are the entire crease crack as someone on twitter posted, the tech for sure isnt ready for mass production, and perhaps should be held back until the display can be improved for sure, and yes i can see the comparision you are refering to with the sapphire glass from the iphone, probably a play on words to make it sound better then it actually is, but i think if you say something is ultra thin, surely it has to be taken as exactly that ultra thin, in my mind that screams fragile regardless of the use of the word glass at the end or not
Mapantz, 18 Feb 2020You're another person who doesn't understand what is going on. It's a pathetic layer of a glas... morei understand completely, its called UTG for a reason, it is ultra thin glass, made in such a way that it bends, is it fragile? YES, is it to weak to use in the current tech? YES, but is it glass? YES, its made with the same materials as glass and produced in a silimar way but through a super thin press, it cant be called plastic if its composition is glass! we can debate all day long but its not just called glass, it has another name, im my opinion like many others, the tech is not quite ready for mass production, and needs more ironing out before it hits the market, and perhaps the z flip closes far to forcefully for such a thin display causing it to shatter, btw, the company is called Schott i think, and it is confirmed in multiple test since jerryrig youtube vid, that it is GLASS, that is only 30μm or 0.03mm thick, what would you think the display should be called if it cant have the word glass in it?
Naima Kennedy, 18 Feb 2020Well the so called glass Samsung used scratches at level 2 meaning it's not glass, it's plasti... moreNo one is forcing you to buy the phone, just like your fake outrage won't change minds of anyone who is going to buy it.
geordie81, 18 Feb 2020its glass, its made of the same materials, using the same techniques as regular glass, except ... moreI think they made the same false marketing as Apple did when claiming their glass was made of sapphire when it only contained a minuscule amount of sapphire.
Samsung's screen on the Z flip still scratches at level 2 which means it's screen is as easily destroyed as the Galaxy fold.
geordie81, 18 Feb 2020its glass, its made of the same materials, using the same techniques as regular glass, except ... moreYou're another person who doesn't understand what is going on. It's a pathetic layer of a glass composite under plastic. The screen can be damaged in exactly the same way as the Fold could. Saying the display is made of glass is completely misleading. If it's so irrelevant, why is it that nearly all of the tech reviewers agree?
Duck of death, 18 Feb 2020Did I watch Jerry rigs everything pretend to be outraged for easy page clicks?
No.Well the so called glass Samsung used scratches at level 2 meaning it's not glass, it's plastic.
I'm waiting 1-2 generations before getting a foldable phone. At that time they might have been able to get past these introductory hardware issues.