5 ms·
Also according to the agreement Huawei was not supposed to "break" it. I am not sure how they are supposed to evaluate it without scratching at it.
by sschueller 8y ago
Also according to the agreement Huawei was not supposed to "break" it. I am not sure how they are supposed to evaluate it without scratching at it.
- sharpneli 8y agoThis one stood out to me too. What benefit it even is to get a sample of protective glass if you are not allowed to test it? ”Here. Look at it. Trust us that it’s super resistant to scratches”.
- eulalila 8y agoThey literally describe Huawei sending a picture to Akhan of a deep scratch in the sample, proving they’re testing it properly. Read the fucking articles people: The first sign of trouble came two months later, in May, when Huawei missed the deadline to return the sample. Shurboff says his emails to Han requesting its immediate return were ignored. The following month, Han wrote that Huawei had been performing “standard” tests on the sample and included a photo showing a big scratch on its surface. Finally, a package from Huawei showed up at Gurnee on Aug. 2.
- dsl 8y agoThere are plenty of "unbreakable" coatings. It sounds like what makes this unique is that is was suitable as a display cover. An initial evaluation would be measuring things like how much light energy of what frequencies is able to penetrate the coating. Is the viewing angle acceptable for a consumer device, etc. Hitting it with a hammer can always come later when they determine that it is a good display glass first.
- RobLach 8y agoScratching it is what was expected of the test since that's the reason you'd want to use diamond, to resist scratching. Breaking it into a number of a pieces with a laser is beyond the scope of testing its ability to resist scratches.
- pergadad 8y agoNo matter what they intended/wanted to do, they signed a contract not to break it. Ain't nothing much to debate there.