Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Blade of Grass

Don’t remove the Samsung Galaxy Phone “screen protector”—Four reports report dead phones after removing

Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2019 at 6:00 PM, LAwLz said:

Does anyone know how hard it was to peel the "screen protector" off?

If it required very little force, like the normal pre-applied film on devices then I can see this being really, really bad. However, if it requires force and actually trying to remove it then it's less of an issue (but still concerning and a design flaw).

 

 

That's what I'm wondering.

If it's somewhere in-between say... Regular film to... Removing shrinkwrap from Nintendo switch game cases without a knife. (Seriously it's more difficult then you'd expect and that's something your supposed to remove!) I really can't blame someone for mistaking it as packaging.

 

If anything it could be considered a design flaw that it even looks like an additional screen protector rather then a part of the phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

those attempting a flexible phone should make it one contiguous piece externally. the hinges shouldn't expose the display layer at all. also agree on the protective layer, especially when it won't do the job over time (there's a reviewer who had her unit started peeling like a cheap sheet screen protector)

 

kinda counted on the samsung phone being the more durable one, since the display is inside the clamshell, but now I have super serious doubts on royole's and huawei's attempts (especially with the numerous number of hinges on huawei's, and that thing doesn't compensate for the bend length at all (since it's creasing upwards when "flat"))

 

it definitely has a place, but not when it's built like that (although I prefer samsung folded the other dimension. reminded me of nokia's lipstick phone ._.)

 

maybe related: compliant mechanisms

 

I actually 3D printed that "wrench". It lasted 10 mins then snapped in 2 places. Why? My materials are not really the right type. You can do some of these things (see biology ;) ), but need the right materials and designs. Samsung seems close, but still not there yet. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the whole point of a screen protector is to replace it when its damaged as it takes the damage the screen it self cannot take, Samsung messed up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't remove "screen protector"

and don't put clay on the hinge

 

 


One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

and don't put clay on the hinge

this phone has an IP rating of 00 ._. quite literally

(i bet it wouldn't pass IP10. unless it resists getting the outer shells pried open at the back with fingers)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 7:49 AM, Quadriplegic said:

Well, VR headsets were are a gimmick too

Fixed that for you. ;)

On 4/19/2019 at 8:55 AM, bradwiggo said:

VR isn't a gimmick because it is a new thing entirely

The Virtual Boy says hello, and welcomes you to the 90's

7-forgotten-virtual-boy-classics.jpg.5ed90fdae493fe6c666368894b0fd2ec.jpg

Seriously, VR has been attempted for over 20 years now, and people still think it's new?

Link to post
Share on other sites

VR has been trying for almost 30 years and it failed every time. I say it failed this time too, but people furiously defend it and "prove" me wrong. No, VR failed again. And it'll keep failing because it's a flawed, broken niche tech no one really asked for but everyone made HUGE fuss about. Until we can solve the movement thing for walking, the bulk of it and price, we're not gonna have VR of any kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Fixed that for you. ;)

The Virtual Boy says hello, and welcomes you to the 90's

7-forgotten-virtual-boy-classics.jpg.5ed90fdae493fe6c666368894b0fd2ec.jpg

Seriously, VR has been attempted for over 20 years now, and people still think it's new?

Yes but it actually happening and being executed in a way that isn't crap is very new. Back before games consoles and TV nd the like there were those things you put an image in and you look through two lenses so the image sortof looks 3D, and you could argue that is VR, but that's like saying phones aren't recent as 10 years ago people would put string between two cans and talk to each other using it. 

 

The concept of VR actually being a thing one might want to use is a very new thing. Back then (20 years ago not the pictures 3D thing) I would have said VR was more like these phones, not that it was a gimmick, more just that it was in such an early stage it wasn't really worth it unless you just really like the idea and want to support/follow the development of it. So maybe in 20 years we will have foldable phone and they will be really good and not break if you try to put a screen protector on them, but until then, what's the real point for most consumers? 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

VR has been trying for almost 30 years and it failed every time. I say it failed this time too, but people furiously defend it and "prove" me wrong. No, VR failed again. And it'll keep failing because it's a flawed, broken niche tech no one really asked for but everyone made HUGE fuss about. Until we can solve the movement thing for walking, the bulk of it and price, we're not gonna have VR of any kind.

I never really understand what people mean when they say it has failed. By what measure has it failed, there is a huge amount of interest in it today, and do people still think the headsets are £800/900, because they aren't. The oculus rift is £350. I suppose that is a lot if you're not interested in it, but if you have a decent PC then it's no where near as much as that, so if you have the interest it isn't a huge amount of money to invest. I don't see how it is "broken" and "flawed". In what way is it broken? 

 

As for the movement, there are various solutions, all of which have been used in games, such as teleportation. A lot of regular games won't work in VR, if that is what you are looking for then you are missing the point. VR is a completely different thing to regular gaming and a lot of VR games simply aren't possible on a monitor. I suppose if you are looking at VR as just another way to play AAA games then yes it has failed, but that's like saying your laptop is crap because you can't use it for professional photography as a camera, you've missed the point. 

 

I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm just wondering where you get the idea that is has failed, as I don't see it that way at all. 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 8:55 AM, bradwiggo said:

VR isn't a gimmick because it is a new thing entirely

12 minutes ago, bradwiggo said:

Yes but it actually happening and being executed in a way that isn't crap is very new.

Talk about moving the goalpost.  First the technology was new (not just new, entirely new), now it's just the implementation that's new.  Make up your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Talk about moving the goalpost.  First the technology was new (not just new, entirely new), now it's just the implementation that's new.  Make up your mind.

VR as a concept isn't a new thing, it has probably been imagined for centuries, but the actual technology needed to pull it off is new, 2016 was the year the vive came out I think, so that is pretty new.

 

You actually took that out of context, full quote: "The difference between a monitor and a VR headset is like the difference between a Motorola flip phone and an Xs max. Completely different. VR isn't a gimmick because it is a new thing entirely" 

 

I was saying that is a new thing compared to "monitor" games. VR is completely different to monitors, it is a new thing , not an expansion of a existing thing. This phone is simply an expansion to the concept of a phone, and one that to me seems like a complete waste of money. 

 

You seem to have the idea that I was implying the technology was new, when what I was saying was that the format of VR is completely separate to anything we have seen before (i.e. regular "monitor" games) 

 

If there are any more of my comments that you would like to take out of context then go ahead, you also seem to have completely diverted from what this thread is about, instead focusing on one small comment made by me, ignoring the larger point of what I was saying. The time in history when VR became a thing doesn't matter for my point. (in fact, my original point was just that this phone seems like a gimmick and nothing to write home about, a sortof pointless addition that is so expensive it's not practical for the general public, the "VR being a gimmick" thing was started by someone else, not me, the only reason I mentioned VR was to explain why I needed a higher end GPU.) 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

this phone has an IP rating of 00 ._. quite literally

(i bet it wouldn't pass IP10. unless it resists getting the outer shells pried open at the back with fingers)

It probably couldn't be even tested enough to give it the IP00, so it would fall into IPXX rating which means "no enough data to specify a protection rating".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bradwiggo said:

but the actual technology needed to pull it off is new

It's not that new.

 

4 hours ago, bradwiggo said:

2016 was the year the vive came out I think,

And? Every technology that went into the Vive existed prior to it, and companies have been playing with the idea, trying to make it something worthwhile.

 

They failed.


Yup the yup.

 

Socialism is for figs.

Not supporting the political facade known as "Gay Pride."

 

Pyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bradwiggo said:

I never really understand what people mean when they say it has failed. By what measure has it failed, there is a huge amount of interest in it today, and do people still think the headsets are £800/900, because they aren't. The oculus rift is £350. I suppose that is a lot if you're not interested in it, but if you have a decent PC then it's no where near as much as that, so if you have the interest it isn't a huge amount of money to invest. I don't see how it is "broken" and "flawed". In what way is it broken? 

 

As for the movement, there are various solutions, all of which have been used in games, such as teleportation. A lot of regular games won't work in VR, if that is what you are looking for then you are missing the point. VR is a completely different thing to regular gaming and a lot of VR games simply aren't possible on a monitor. I suppose if you are looking at VR as just another way to play AAA games then yes it has failed, but that's like saying your laptop is crap because you can't use it for professional photography as a camera, you've missed the point. 

 

I'm not trying to change your opinion, I'm just wondering where you get the idea that is has failed, as I don't see it that way at all. 

No, VR doesn't work well even for what it was designed specifically. And if you think 350€ or GBP is cheap, you're wrong again. 350€ graphic card is justifiable because you will be able to run 100% of games on it. Where 350€ VR headset works with what, 1% of games if at all? It's hard to justify pretty much any price point for such poor use of product you pay that kind of money for. Not to mention it's clumsy to use and the movement with teleportation is the dumbest thing I've seen to date and only exists because some people can't handle continuous motion using headset as it gives them nausea/sea sickness. It's basically a hack because it doesn't work with some users lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

No, VR doesn't work well even for what it was designed specifically. And if you think 350€ or GBP is cheap, you're wrong again. 350€ graphic card is justifiable because you will be able to run 100% of games on it. Where 350€ VR headset works with what, 1% of games if at all? It's hard to justify pretty much any price point for such poor use of product you pay that kind of money for. Not to mention it's clumsy to use and the movement with teleportation is the dumbest thing I've seen to date and only exists because some people can't handle continuous motion using headset as it gives them nausea/sea sickness. It's basically a hack because it doesn't work with some users lol

How does it not work for what it was designed specifically? Well a better question is what do you think it was designed for, maybe we just disagree as to what it was designed for. 

 

100% of VR games work with it, again, if you think VR and normal games are the same thing then you're missing the point. It shouldn't be compared to the price of a GPU, more to the price of a monitor, in which case they are quite cheap compared to higher end monitors. I don't know what you mean by 1% of games "if at all"? 

 

"It's hard to justify pretty much any price point for such poor use of product you pay that kind of money for." - I mean if you don't like the idea of VR then sure, I can't justify spending £3000 on a car because I have no interest in driving. You clearly don't seem to like VR for some reason, so yes, to you, any amount of money will be unjustifiable. 

 

"Not to mention it's clumsy to use and the movement with teleportation is the dumbest thing I've seen to date" - Heavily subjective evidence. 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Drak3 said:

 It's not that new.

 

And? Every technology that went into the Vive existed prior to it, and companies have been playing with the idea, trying to make it something worthwhile.

 

They failed.

I mean the technology existed before the release of the products obviously, but the actual level of technology you need to get VR to work well, and the hardware to run it. It has only been made possible fairly recently. 

 

How did they fail? That's a very broad statement with no justification given. In my mind they didn't fail, as I mentioned to someone else, if you are looking for VR to be a simple replacement for your monitor for AAA games then yes, it failed, but that was never the point in the first place. 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bradwiggo said:

It has only been made possible fairly recently. 

Again, false. Oculus' DK1 came out 6 years ago, and VR systems still predate it. Hell, multiple technologies necessary for the botched experience that is modern VR has existed in the consumer space for quite some time.

 

1 minute ago, bradwiggo said:

How did they fail?

Dev support is falling off for VR, and the user base is waining. The only area where HMDs are (relatively) strong is the commercial field, and that's still a niche that doesn't drive much momentum.


Yup the yup.

 

Socialism is for figs.

Not supporting the political facade known as "Gay Pride."

 

Pyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Drak3 said:

Again, false. Oculus' DK1 came out 6 years ago, and VR systems still predate it. Hell, multiple technologies necessary for the botched experience that is modern VR has existed in the consumer space for quite some time.

 

Dev support is falling off for VR, and the user base is waining. The only area where HMDs are (relatively) strong is the commercial field, and that's still a niche that doesn't drive much momentum.

Yes and the DK1 had a lot of problems, it made people motion sick, the screen door effect was very noticeable. That is why I mentioned the Vive by name. The technology to build the vive for a reasonable price obviously wasn't around when the DK1 first came out. The DK1 wasn't a consumer release of VR, hence the name, Dev Kit (1). 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bradwiggo said:

Yes and the DK1 had a lot of problems, it made people motion sick, the screen door effect was very noticeable.

You do realize that these things are also true of the Rift, Vive, and Vive Pro, right?

 

1 minute ago, bradwiggo said:

The DK1 wasn't a consumer release of VR,

Yes, it was. DK1 and DK2 had been comercially released when they came out. Anyone could buy them from Oculus.


Yup the yup.

 

Socialism is for figs.

Not supporting the political facade known as "Gay Pride."

 

Pyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You do realize that these things are also true of the Rift, Vive, and Vive Pro, right?

  

Yes, it was. DK1 and DK2 had been comercially released when they came out. Anyone could buy them from Oculus.

The Vive has much better tracking, a much much lower response time due to OLED screen, which leads to less motion sickness because of blur, and the screen door effect is much less visible as it has a vastly increased resolution. Some people will still feel ill when using it, but for a lot of people the difference between the DK1 and the Vive is night and day. 

 

They weren't intended for the greater consumer audience though, hence why what is know technically the "old" rift was called the CV1, not the CV3. Pretty sure the DK2 used a modified phone display. 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Samsung officially confirmed to have pushed back the release of the Fold now, I guess they figured this kind of failure rate was unacceptable on such an expensive device?

https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/samsung-confirms-galaxy-fold-delay-shares-initial-findings-on-faulty-units/

 

full statement from Samsung:

Quote

We recently unveiled a completely new mobile category: a smartphone using multiple new technologies and materials to create a display that is flexible enough to fold. We are encouraged by the excitement around the Galaxy Fold.

While many reviewers shared with us the vast potential they see, some also showed us how the device needs further improvements that could ensure the best possible user experience.

To fully evaluate this feedback and run further internal tests, we have decided to delay the release of the Galaxy Fold. We plan to announce the release date in the coming weeks.

Initial findings from the inspection of reported issues on the display showed that they could be associated with impact on the top and bottom exposed areas of the hinge. There was also an instance where substances found inside the device affected the display performance.

We will take measures to strengthen the display protection. We will also enhance the guidance on care and use of the display including the protective layer so that our customers get the most out of their Galaxy Fold.

We value the trust our customers place in us and they are always our top priority. Samsung is committed to working closely with customers and partners to move the industry forward. We want to thank them for their patience and understanding.

 

So yeah, they realized the easily removable "protective layer" was an issue, among other things, even if they had a label on the screen not to remove it.


CPU: Intel Core i7 875k / GPU: Radeon HD7970 GHz 3GB  / RAM: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GBx2 DDR3-1600
MOBO: ASUS P7P55D-e LX / SSD: Intel 520 120GB / Case: Cooler Master HAF912 / PSU: Corsair TX850w / OS: Windows 10 Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites

The official delay sounds a bit like a Galaxy Note 7 redux, minus the fires... they were overly optimistic about their design and are paying the price.  Not as embarrassing since few were going to buy the Fold, but it does reinforce Samsung's reputation as a company that insists on shouting "first!" without care for the quality of the experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Commodus said:

The official delay sounds a bit like a Galaxy Note 7 redux, minus the fires... they were overly optimistic about their design and are paying the price.  Not as embarrassing since few were going to buy the Fold, but it does reinforce Samsung's reputation as a company that insists on shouting "first!" without care for the quality of the experience.

How the hell can you say delaying a product "enforces Samsung's reputation about rushing things and not caring about the quality"? 

Seriously, I do not understand how messed up your thought process has to be to hear "Samsung delays product launch" and think "aha! Samsung is rushing a product out without caring about the quality!". 

 

They are doing the exact opposite of what you accuse them of doing. If you delay a product launch because of issues then clearly you care about the quality. 

 

And I find you accusation of" Samsung just wants to shout 'first' " equally confusing since I have seen you accuse them of mostly copying Apple without coming up with their own ideas. You can't have it both ways. 

 

 

I think this is a very good move by Samsung which should reinforce the image that they care about their customers and are not afraid to suffer large financial losses, like they did with the note 7, if it means protecting their customers from issues and problems with their devices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Buy VPN

×