30
Phone makers are ditching Gorilla Glass, but what gives? (www.androidauthority.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/android@lemdro.id
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 94 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

This is a nothing article with no real substantive information or answer to the question.

The answer is undoubtedly 1. cost, and/or 2. trade war.

  1. As the article notes, Gorilla Glass is expensive, companies would rather not pay for it and use older versions in cheaper phones, quite frankly this is a plausible enough of a reason to not even bother writing the "article".

  2. If the author had wanted to spend another minute thinking about it before posting, they might've realized that Corning is an American company, and Chinese smartphone makers might be hedging their bets and investing in in-house / in-country alternatives in case they get cut off by the petulant child of a country that is America.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -92 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Trade war makes sense but your first point is utter fucking nonsense and if you had a braincell you would read the article before commenting like a twat. You're exactly the kind of person who screams fake news before doing any research like those conservative vaccine repelling morons.

    Considering it looks like you need clickbait headlines to operate on a day to day basis, here you go - article CLEARLY states and in house glasses are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than Gorilla Glass for some manufacturers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Lmfao bro,

    article CLEARLY states and in house glasses are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than Gorilla Glass for some manufacturers.

    no man, it does not. It quotes a single Chinese manufacturer's spokesperson who said that off hand about a single type of screen. It has no information on whether or not that's actually true for Honor, it has no information about whether or not that would be true if they produced their screens at the same scale as Corning or whether they expect production to get cheaper, and it doesn't mention anything about literally any of the other brands or any of the the other in-house screen technologies in use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So it does quote someone who's quote you are going to ignore because you don't like it. Genius, absolutely genius.

    it has no information about whether or not that would be true if they produced their screens at the same scale as Corning or whether they expect production to get cheaper

    Yes because the author is obligated to report this when writing the article by going undercover as a Chinese defector, working up from the factories, becoming CEO of China and then finally putting this information out to public. Who would have thought becoming an Android news reporter requires such sacrifice. No wonder no one wants to work in this field.

    it doesn't mention anything about literally any of the other brands or any of the the other in-house screen technologies in use.

    It has information on THREE brands with three different technologies attempting to make a change, with information about multiple variables about why they think they can replace Corning. I didn't realise the author had to create a new Wikipedia before putting this out. Maybe he should've started a GoFundMe?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So it does quote someone who's quote you are going to ignore because you don't like it. Genius, absolutely genius.

    No, I'm ignoring it because the author of the piece is trying to get engineering, manufacturing, and costing information about multiple different products from multiple different brands, based on an off hand comment made by a marketing person from one of them about one of their products.

    Yes because the author is obligated to report this when writing the article by going undercover as a Chinese defector, working up from the factories, becoming CEO of China and then finally putting this information out to public. Who would have thought becoming an Android news reporter requires such sacrifice. No wonder no one wants to work in this field.

    Maybe "Android News Reporter" isn't a job that attracts the best and brightest from journalism school.

    It has information on THREE brands with three different technologies attempting to make a change, with information about multiple variables about why they think they can replace Corning. I didn't realise the author had to create a new Wikipedia before putting this out. Maybe he should've started a GoFundMe?

    No, it has "information" that three brands are sometimes not using Gorilla Glass in some of their phones, it then has a marketing fluff quote from one of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You say "marketing person" or "marketing quote" as if that means nothing - reporting factual information from them is standard practice in all news. Maybe there should be literally nothing posted by any news website in the world then?

    In fact, why even post reviews? Obviously nobody wants marketing fluff like "phone has 12GB RAM", those damn capitalist corporations are faking that too, there's only one person in this world who's woke enough to understand that. These idiots should realise that [phone 2025] is obviously going to be better than [phone 2024]. Maybe those scrubs should realise that before writing a sham of an article.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    You say "marketing person" or "marketing quote" as if that means nothing - reporting factual information from them is standard practice in all news. Maybe there should be literally nothing posted by any news website in the world then?

    Bruh, do all the news sources you read just repost marketing statements? I don't think you realize what an own-goal that statement is.

    Journalism involves reporting on true information, including determining whether or not information is true, or likely to be true, it's not just reposting corporate fluff.

    In fact, why even post reviews? Obviously nobody wants marketing fluff like "phone has 12GB RAM", those damn capitalist corporations are faking that too, there's only one person in this world who's woke enough to understand that. These idiots should realise that [phone 2025] is obviously going to be better than [phone 2024]. Maybe those scrubs should realise that before writing a sham of an article.

    Here's a fun fact for you: there's a fundamental difference between reposting a claim someone else made, and evaluating and testing something and making your own claim about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent