“The most important thing that happens when a new iPhone comes out is not the release of the phone, but the disassembly of it.”

Demonstrably false. The market has proven that almost no one cares about this.

When the iPhone first came out, people derided it’s lack of removable battery. Good luck finding a high end smartphone with a removable battery these days. Then there was components soldered onto the board, then the removal of the headphone socket, all of which Samsung, etc have copied*.

Outside of a vocal minority, no one cares about phone repairability. If you do, congrats, you’re part of that minority, and that’s fine. Personally, I think it’s a reasonable thing, but clearly, most people prefer thinner, lighter, water resistant phones over fixable phones.

* note: yes, Apple have copied features of droid phones too. No, it’s not relevant to this discussion.

They claim the headphone jack was a roadblock to water resistance and that they have used the space for more important things. I'm...not convinced.

The cynical me thinks its just apple trying to undermine the 3.5mm jack with their proprietary overpriced shit. The less cynical part of me sees it as a continuation of their minimalist design philosophy. This is a company that would give you just one button to control your computer with if they could (whether it makes sense or not). Also, aesthetically it is more in line with their sort of "magic box" thing - they don't want you to see it as a machine with working parts and the familiar 3.5mm jack kind of breaks that illusion.

I go through a lot of headphones every year. The point of failure is almost always the wire or the connection at either end, so while I know I'd lose those earpods or w/e the fuck they are calling them in a heartbeat, and I do love the ubiquity of the 3.5mm jack, I must admit I do quite like the idea of not having the wire.

For one time, I would wish this was a viral (for waterproof mobile phones, or water-resistant shoes, or something).
I can't imagine that the natural behavior of these animals is 'whatever I find around that is not bolted down or too heavy, I am going to soak it in water and see what happens'.

There are a couple of good points about this video, a couple of bad ones, and several things he didn't mention that he should have.
The good - yes people usually use too little, and don't reapply as often as they should, they also don't realise that water resistant doesn't mean water proof, and don't reapply after going in the water.

The bad - he didn't debunk that study at all - conducting perfect studies are next to impossible, that doesn't mean this study was not useful in guiding decision making. Then he turned around, and without even referring to a study, said that sunscreen is "good", as if we should completely disregard a large study done across many years, but take his word for something 'because he says so'. There is actually no proof that sunscreens are good, only that they reduce the rate of burning if used as directed, and they may reduce the rates of some cancers, but the important thing is that the wavelengths that are causing the burning are not necessarily the ones that are doing the most DNA damage - so sunscreens should only be used as a last resort, the DNA will still suffer UV damage no matter what SPF you use if you stay out too long in the hot part of the day (usually 10-4).

Things he didn't mention - if you leave sunscreen on too long and continue to stay out in the sun, the UV rays react with the sunscreen in the deeper layers of the dermis to form free radicals (which can be cancer forming compounds). So using it improperly could potentially increase your risk of getting cancer.

This is not even to mention the numerous dodgy compounds that are often in sunscreens that have had very little testing done on them over the long term to ensure they are safe for human use. Or the fact sunscreens (even broad spectrum ones) provide very little UVA protection, and little to no infrared protection (which also causes damage).

So in my opinion, sunscreens have the potential to be good, but a far better option is to get your sun when the sun is not at it's hottest so you get enough vitamin D, then the rest of the day, cover yourself with effective clothing/wide brimmed hat if you are outside. If you absolutely have to be outside and it is impossible to wear proper clothing then follow his advice and make sure you use the sunscreen as directed, as this is far more important than going for an SPF higher than about 15. Just be prepared to buy a lot of sunscreen because you will be very surprised how much you have to use to cover yourself properly.

Apple's strategy appears to be progressive in releasing new products and conservative in making iterations.

It's particularly obvious on the iPhone. (1) On screen size they've barely budged while competitors have offered options varying widely from 3-7 inches. While some would argue phones larger than 5 inches are ungainly, it's very much a personal preference and where there's clearly demand say for Samsung's Note series, the option should be available. (2) The UI may have also been revamped but compared to the customisability of Android, it's still immensely basic and locked down, (3) File access continues to be restricted through iTunes which keeps transferring files, and sharing them between apps a massive pain. Apple's bandaid solution to this is to stick a 'share' button everywhere, but this is hardly a real solution.

The problem is Apple's slow pace of change means they're losing their competitive advantage. I'd argue the big change that has kept the iPhone successful even as Android was beginning to catch up several years after the first iPhone was the (1) all metal design that came with the iPhone 4 & (2) the smoothness of their UI. Now with phones like the HTC One, the durable/water resistant series from Sony and the rumor that Samsung is going all metal with its next generation, the first advantage is going. The second went with Android Jelly Bean which mostly fixed Android's laginess. I just don't see anything coming along that will significantly differentiate them in the future, both the iPhone 5 and 5S really didn't offer anything as compelling as the build quality of the 4.

The iPhones main remaining advantages are its user friendliness and the relative strength of its app store. I'd argue the first is over-exaggerated, and even if it is such a large factor, the sheer fact that it has already seen sizable portions of the older generation being enticed into smartphones makes the next step of moving to a new UI a relative cinch. Effectively Android phone makers/Google can capitalize on the market Apple helped create. With the build quality gap diminishing and Android device prices coming down, while iPhone prices remain largely unchanged I think the incentive to switch will rise.

The App Store's strength is largely a factor of the revenue that it brings in for app creators. Yes, no doubt iOS apps are generally pricier and it's users more willing to pay. But with the dominance in market share for Android in developing markets, even if their consumers are poorer, it's only a matter of time before at the very least app makers move from the iOS first, Android second model to a simultaneous release. From there I think it will be a steady decline for iOS.

http://www.seven7box.com/bluetooth-headset-sports-water-resistant_p1905.html
Bluetooth Headset - Sports +Water Resistant
Professional and reliable China wholesale website where you can buy wholesale gadgets, cell phones, mp4 players, spy cameras, security products and more...and dropship them anywhere in the world!

dr@seven7box.com

china wholesaler, discount china wholesale, wholesale, china supplier, china trade, china dropshipper

thanks! you are a swell fellow

In reply to this comment by wingnut:
*promote

>> ^gwiz665:
I wanna see that done with beer and/or red wine!


That would hurt me to see.. spilling innocent alcohol for test purposes.. no way, man. Give it here.

>> ^dag:
The fact that the top 3 all broke the world record says A LOT about the new Speedo suits.


I hope that was tongue-in-cheek. Speedo has been making "sharkskin" and "aquablade" suits for years with the same goal of less water resistance and better muscle compression. If you watch more of the races you will see plenty of events where the athletes only wear jammers (knee length) or legs. If the new suit material offered a distinct advantage, you'd see body suits in every event.

It all comes down to what will make the athlete "feel" fastest in the water. (This is the same reason why swimmers shave. Removing the layer of dead skin cells makes you feel much faster through the water, and is as important as removing the resistance causing hairs.) Claiming that these suits somehow enabled such great swims is akin to attributing Adrian Peterson's NFL single-game rushing record last season to the plastic pads and helmet he wears that athletes 50 years ago didn't have access to.

After all, those suits aren't the ones in the water for 6 hours a day for the past 4 years.