And I had read that Foxconn had really made a decent iPhone this time too. Ah well. The Apple Reality Distortion Field will prevent this from becoming an issue.
Apple's $1,000 iPhone X may have trouble operating in the winter weather. This is according to multiple complaints from owners and an admission from the Cupertino idiot-tax operation itself that, in cold temperatures, the OLED touchscreen on the shiny new handsets can become temporarily unresponsive. We're told that, when …
Actually I'm far more concerned about El Reg using the term "W!nter !s Com!ng" given how DCMA happy HBO appear to be over the phrase happened happened https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/08/winter_is_coming_hbo_dmca_trademark/
Early signals are not good. massive channel stuffing for iphone8, with nobody buying and mothballed production lines at P* F* and G*. Apple were hoping to unmothball those lines for iPhone X production, but actual sales (not shipments) are massively under forecast.
Seems the theory that nobody wanted the iphone8 because the X was coming turns out to be totally untrue, how long before investors grasp this, who knows.. (but then Microsoft share price keeps going up whilst their products tank)
Rather than release a pesky software update - always a risky move - or get Foxconn to fix the hardware - already enough suicides there, all Apple needs to do is convert their data centres to run purely on diesel and thereby raise the Earth's temperature by a few degrees.
Everyone wins! iPhone X users get to use their phones outside, we all get nicer weather, dogs no longer need those odd little padded winter coats, and we can turn down the heating a few notches. A shame about the Great Barrier reef and all that, but I went there in 2007, so I've already seen it, and for the rest of you there's always Blue Planet II. It looks fantastic on a 4K TV. Of course it used to look much better in real life, but so did Angelina Jolie. That's progress, folks.
B, b, bu, bu, but it's so beautiful, it must be perfect, mustn't it?????
Nope, but this illustrates with perfection why I never buy new hardware concepts* unless they have been in the field for at least 6 months. Besides, it saves queueing :).
* Not that I was planning to buy the X - not a fan of the whole facial thing.
Please. PLEASE. Let me go! I need to go to work to earn some money to pay for all this crack-cocaine-tech.
Your reasoning is sound. You may leave, but don't forget your Geek-Bar appointment next Saturday at 11am. Failure to show up will result in forfeiture of your kidneys. Have a nice day.
The actual visual display technology is irrelevant, because that doesn't register touch. It will be the digitiser and or the capacitive overlayer. I accept the vendor is probably the same company for all, but this is a tech web site isn't it?
Oh, alright, it was a tech web site.
Curious. The digitiser is not related to the display type (OLED vs LCD)… though it's possible that Apple have implemented their digitiser differently on the X (maybe to bring the pixels closer to the glass or somesuch).
There's mentions going back years of capacitive touchscreen losing sensitivity in cold weather. The following mentions it:
Was 20F when I left the house, and mine did not have any issues when I stepped outside. Then I put the gloves on, because 20 is ridiculous for this time of year when I'm not properly acclimated...yikes! It was in the 80s less than three weeks ago, I want that back!!
"The bright side, said Apple, is that among its younger ranks – employees under 30 – women have better representation at 36 per cent and underrepresented minorities 31 per cent, including half of all new hires."
I get emailed tech newsletters and scan them for interesting topics. Each newletter will have 12-20 topics. Twice now I've been struck by the obvious 'placement' of articles, reports by summer interns at Google, where the placements made certain you would notice "lookee, lookee, females!"
Two in one newsletter, three in another. I'd not noticed articles about Google interns a year ago. Somehow it wasn't important before? With all being women, somehow the importance seems to be just... appearances? These were all interns, and the work was valid and useful, but somehow the work didn't seem to match the importance these were given most ostentatiously.
The motivation here was oh so obvious, and done so ham-handedly. Question is, the women here - are they the hammers or the nails? Hey, no objectification here, right?
A few years ago there was an article on ElReg on UK university engineering course which commented that the brochures invariably featured 3 example students of which 1 would be female - but the article went on to explain that prospective applicants should not assume that 33% of students would be female! When I took my son to an open day we experienced this first hand ... applicants to several different courses all attended a single presentation from Vice Chancellor etc before splitting off for per subject sessions. We'd already seen applicant for the mid-wifery course (100% female) going to a seperate session then at end of main presentation courses were called out and people went off ... one course was "Media relations" (or somethinng like that - anyway was 90-95% female) and at end it was engineering applicants left ... 90% male!
Twice now I've been struck by the obvious 'placement' of articles, reports by summer interns at Google, where the placements made certain you would notice "lookee, lookee, females!"
Here in the UK, the BBC has a royal charter to do that "painfully obvious prioritisation of an almost but not quite irrelevant article involving women/transgender/minorities" stuff.
Which is faintly amusing, given that the BBC is clearly fingered for being ageist, sexist, classist, politically biased, nepotistic, and willing to sweep all dirt under the carpet about its own "stars" behaviour.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019