Rubber alone would require pressure pushing the battery against the housing to maintain the battery position during a drop. This pressure against the underside of the display module would mess with the display.
Adhesive is needed because there can’t be any pressure against the underside of the display module, and the battery can’t be allowed to move even a slight amount during drop impacts.
In reality, replaceable batteries aren't glued inside some sort of box. Glue simply isn't necessary. It's probably just slightly easier to use a solution with glue instead of one without glue.
Phones with replaceable batteries typically were more durable, not less. (Though that may have to do with using plastic cases that are more durable than glass.)
> If this was true, phones with replaceable batteries would be impossible.
They're thicker to account for a solid plastics barrier between the battery compartment and the display backside to protect the display from the user during battery replacement. Glueing the battery to the phone backplate allows the manufacturer to skip the .5mm of plastic.
Would anyone care if their phone was .5mm thicker?
I realize if this logic was applied to everything the phone could double in thickness, but for a consumable part like a battery, it seems worth the sacrifice to make the repair trivial for the average user armed with nothing but a small screw driver.
Most people already put their expensive thin phones in thick cases, so, no, besides dumb teenagers, I doubt anyone would care.
But simultaneously, I don't know if that many people would consider it to be selling point either nowadays. Battery capacities don't seem to shrink as quickly anymore, such that the phone probably gets damaged/stops receiving updates/is replaced anyway by the time the battery would need swapping.
Although perhaps that'll change now that the changes between even 2-3 year models are getting pretty small and software support periods are increasing.
I don’t understand the mindset that marketing people somehow trick millions of users. Most of marketing is figuring out what people want and convincing them your product meets those needs.
There isn’t really a marketing strategy of “nobody values this but we will fight to the death to get the product designed that way so we can spend a ton of money convincing consumers to want something they don’t”.
Or, let me rephrase that, there is no sustainable marketing strategy like that. People do try (see: New Coke, Humane AI pin).
Phones with replaceable batteries use plastic, and people really hate plastic (they use "cheap plastic" as a synonym for "plastic"). So they rather buy a phone that is a little bit slimmer and has a glass back.
(Manufacturers probably also like phones that have to be replaced in a few years due to battery age.)
Marketing people love some metric they can use to differentiate from competition. A phone gets thinner, lighter and survives more fall height or water depth. A PC gets a faster CPU (anyone thinking back to the megahertz wars [1] or the gigahertz wars [2]?), a bigger SSD or more RAM.
I fail to see your argument. How would opening up immigration benefit Japan, other than depressing wages? Japan is an island already overpopulated relative to it's native energy and agricultural resources. Importing more low-value workers will only lower the quality of living for existing inhabitants of Japan.
Japan should focus instead on better utilizing the high-skill labor force that they already have.
I cancelled my whole Prime subscription. The few things I’ve ordered since then have been delivered in 2 days with free shipping, so I’m still not sure what I was paying for before.
Flawless communication between team members is important when developing complex products. If my team was primarily comprised of people who only fluently speak German, and we are located in Germany, is it not reasonable for me to set a requirement that new candidates must speak fluent German?
Why are you entitled to have people speak your language, when you are the immigrant?
I have experienced breakdown in communications due to English not being good enough many, many times.
There's plenty of stories in comments here, about how bad offshore teams are. In most cases it's just a result of poor communications(due to lack of English proficiency). I've had to switch to other languages to explain some basic things about "what the client actually wanted", because of breakdown in communications.
Because it's equally hard to find good workforce here in Germany. Besides, I expect every IT worker to be able to at least understand, if not speak English in a way that two foreigners can understand each other pretty well. How else did you acquire your knowledge? By only falling back to literature in your language? That seems kind of limiting if you are working in IT.
Your "entitlement" argument sounds a bit harsh for me, to be honest.
>Because it's equally hard to find good workforce here in Germany.
1) There's no shortage of developers just a shortage of pay.
2) It's also hard to find doctors, that doesn't mean hospitals should compromise and let everyone practice who doesn't speak the language practice medicine just because there's a shortage.
Similarly, a lot of companies don't want to compromise on the language skillset, especially if most of their products are only for the local market that will be used mainly by other German speakers. So having devs not fluent in the local language and not understand the little details and semantics in requirements written in German, means a lot of time wasted with translations and clarifications.
It's the first argument HN brings against offshoring, saying it doesn't work because foreign devs don't understand the business and semantics of a foreign language or culture. Why do you think it suddenly doesn't also apply with foreign workers on-shore?
>How else did you acquire your knowledge? By only falling back to literature in your language? That seems kind of limiting if you are working in IT.
The limiting factor is not other developers, although it could be sometimes. It's the managers who don't use English on a regular basis like IT workers do, especially if like I said before, their company mostly caters to the German speaking market, and they wish to address developers directly for questions and feedback in meetings without only reaching out to the German speakers in the team to have to transalte further.
If you have a company meeting in the US or UK, is it not in the local language ? Why would any other country be different?
>If you have a company meeting in the US or UK, is it not in the local language ? Why would any other country be different?
It's really simple: English is the international language of business. So a German IT professional can easily get a job in the US or UK, because every college-educated German speaks English fluently. Same goes for every such person in China, India, Russia, France, everywhere really. So US and UK companies routinely hire professionals from outside those countries.
The reverse isn't true: how many Brits or Americans can speak German well enough to relocate to Germany and get an IT/software job there? Almost none. So German companies are limited to candidates from Germany, Austria, and part of Switzerland and maybe a few people from some other nearby countries maybe. American and UK companies, OTOH, have all the best candidates from around the world available to them.
>1) There's no shortage of developers just a shortage of pay.
Sure, offering more money than any other company in Germany would probably get a company their pick of candidates. But it'll also increase their costs a lot and make them less competitive internationally. Don't forget though: German companies aren't just competing with other German companies for candidates: they're competing with companies in other countries, especially English-speaking countries. German candidates aren't stuck in Germany: they can easily move to English countries and work there too. Can German companies really afford FAANG-level salaries?
>2) It's also hard to find doctors, that doesn't mean hospitals should compromise and let everyone practice who doesn't speak the language practice medicine just because there's a shortage.
If you have people dying left and right because there's no medical treatment due to a doctor shortage, then yes. At some point, there really is a such thing as a labor shortage and you have to adapt.
They have an operating profit, but they choose to reinvest it all back into the company, thus they don't have an overall profit. They could reduce the amount they are reinvesting into the company at any time in order to produce an overall profit.
This is exactly what Amazon did/does. Doesn't mean that they have "limped along"
Github can't monopolize the word "copilot". It's a basic english word to describe someone that is assisting you to steer a vessel/team/project. It's been around for hundreds of years in naval industry, and in aviation since the dawn of flight.
In rural areas with no cell service, AM radio is often the only available form of weather and news. It's also a great form of emergency information broadcasting in the event of a natural disaster.
There might be a silver lining to the slow death of commercial terrestrial radio: Doing away with the polite fiction that commercial terrestrial radio is a valid way to communicate emergency information. Even if the "local" radio stations are active and broadcasting a signal, they're often only local in a way that does not matter when it comes to emergency broadcasts:
> The Minot train derailment occurred just west of Minot, North Dakota, United States, on January 18, 2002, when a Canadian Pacific Railway freight train derailed, spreading ammonia gas across the city, delaying rescue operations. The cause was found to be small fatigue cracks in the rails and joint bars, not detectable by the inspection routines then enforced by Canadian Pacific.
[snip]
> Because it was the middle of the night, there were few people at local radio stations, all operated by Clear Channel with mostly automated programming. No formal emergency warnings were issued for several hours while Minot officials located station managers at home. North Dakota's public radio network, Prairie Public Broadcasting, was notified and did broadcast warnings to citizens.
Public radio succeeded. Commercial radio did not. People have been utterly resistant to learning this lesson. Maybe once commercial radio is dead they'll have no other choice.
Obviously, cell phones can do it. They already do this for a lot of people.
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards already exists as well, but the receivers should be more widespread. Putting them into cars and TV sets would be a good start, especially with GPS receivers to automatically figure out where they are and, therefore, which alerts to listen to.
Giving more funding to noncommercial radio stations, to guarantee they exist, for one thing, and have people in the booth all the time, for another. America doesn't have an analogue to the BBC so ensuring the local and regional public stations remain usable for this purpose is essential.
> alerts that go out to cell phones probably reach more people than radio.
Only if the disaster is mild enough that cell phones still work. And let's not forget that there are enormous areas of the US where there is no reliable (or any) cell service.
I'm just hoping that for disaster communications, nobody is actually deciding to cut some people off just because there aren't enough of them.
The only solution is multiple solutions. Commercial radio has a threshold of how small a market can be before it isn't worth it any longer, noncommercial radio (including NOAA weather radio stations) can fill in those gaps but require people to have the receivers handy, and more people carry cell phones than radios nowadays but cell service isn't absolutely everywhere. We can improve each of those individual technologies, but no single technology is going to become the only answer.
The Airpods and Apple Watch I think were both legitimately innovative when first released. They were massive leaps over what previous existed in their respective segments.
Over the last 10 years Dassault has slowly been destroying Solidworks. Each update brings new bugs, and almost no new features.
They are now trying to force all users over to their new 3DExperience platform which is a half-baked pile of garbage for all but large companies which can afford to have a dedicated IT team to support it.
Dassault did kill Solidworks, it just took them some time.
Adhesive is needed because there can’t be any pressure against the underside of the display module, and the battery can’t be allowed to move even a slight amount during drop impacts.
reply