3 ms·

> How many people were affected by this, and is this comparable to the failure rate of the dive computer you implicitly trust? No idea. All the owners of that

> How many people were affected by this, and is this comparable to the failure rate of the dive computer you implicitly trust? No idea. All the owners of that model of iphone. I have no clue how many units were sold. How is that important? Failure rate talk is a 14yrs old post from a manufacturer that used to make dive computers but has stopped. Let's ignore that until a better source is given. 2nd link: some contaminant is destroying the computer… I'm sure apple™plastic™ is no more resistant than regular plastic. The bluetooth is not a life threatening issue. The software issues are indeed worrying. In any event, those are companies that have sold millions of units. Diving with the apple watch is so costly (hardware + subscription) that few rich hobbyists will do that, and no professional diver. I'm sure failures and issues will come out, but not in the same numbers, because the heavy users can buy 2 dive computers to have redundancy and still spend less than how much it costs doing it with apple.

dmitriid 4y ago
> No idea. All the owners of that model of iphone. I have no clue how many units were sold. How is that important? So, you have no idea how many were affected, but "all users". How is that important? If it was 1% of 1% of users affected, then it's probably better than most diving equipment. If it's 99%, then it's bad. > Let's ignore that until a better source is given. And yet, when we talk about Apple it's "I don't know, all of them". Hm... > In any event, those are companies that have sold millions of units. So has Apple. Your point? > that few rich hobbyists will do that, and no professional diver. How is that relevant to your implicit trust in diving computers and explicit mistrust in Apple because of something that happened 12 years ago to an unknown percentage of users for a phone that in first three days sold more than probably all dive computers are being sold in a year. > I'm sure failures and issues will come out, but not in the same numbers, I wonder if you realise that individual models from various dive computer makers are probably selling in the same numbers as what's expected from Apple Watch Ultra. And yet, you trust them implicitly.
- bombolo 4y ago
  > So, you have no idea how many were affected, but "all users". How is that important? If it was 1% of 1% of users affected, then it's probably better than most diving equipment. If it's 99%, then it's bad. I like how you like to make up random numbers with no data to sound very scientific :) > And yet, when we talk about Apple it's "I don't know, all of them". Hm... That's because I don't provide random forum posts of something happening to 1 person as "this happens to every user". > So has Apple. Your point? Apple has sold millions of scuba diving apple watches to active scuba divers??? Do you have a source on this unbelievable fact you just made up? > How is that relevant The thing is that I base my opinions on data, and at the moment there is no existing data. You on the other hand just type numbers to justify your opinions, and call that "data". So it is relevant because apple watch will never see intensive scuba diving use, and will thus experience fewer total failures, because of not being used as much. Like, a car driving constantly breaks way more often than a car that is just being displayed. Doesn't necessarily mean that the display car is better because it doesn't fail. > I wonder if you realise that individual models from various dive computer makers are probably selling in the same numbers as what's expected from Apple Watch Ultra. I wonder if you realise instead of buying 1 apple watch you can buy 2 diving computers, have excellent redundancy and save 500$.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > I like how you like to make up random numbers with no data to sound very scientific :) Says the person whose answer is "I don't know". I told you why knowing the percentage of people affected is important. You just dismiss it. > Apple has sold millions of scuba diving apple watches to active scuba divers??? No. Apple has sold millions of devices. Which is important when discussing failure rates. > The thing is that I base my opinions on data, and at the moment there is no existing data. No. You base your opinion on "I don't know, all of them, only rich people will use Ultra so issues will not in the same numbers". That's no data. That's pure speculation. You don't even have failure stats for dive computers, do you? Even given that each particular model of a dive computer is used by potentially as many people as those "only rich people who will use watch ultra". But sure, "dive computers are used in an activity that can kill you", and the internet is littered with "What happens if your dive computer fails" articles. Dive computer manufacturers explicitly call this put in their manuals [1] And there are literally no standards for verification of dive computers, manufacturers routinely lie about their certifications or skip them [2] And yet. "I wouldn't trust Apple unlike these manufacturers that have sold millions of devices because data!" [1] E.g. Suunto: https://ns.suunto.com/Manuals/D6i/Userguides/Suunto_D6i_UserGuide_EN.pdf https://ns.suunto.com/Manuals/D6i/Userguides/Suunto_D6i_User... page 4 [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295967776_Dive_computers_the_need_for_validation_and_standards https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295967776_Dive_comp...
microtherion 4y ago
> I'm sure apple™plastic™ is no more resistant than regular plastic. I would not know about the specific area of dive computers, but in general, Apple can and does conduct materials research and procurement on an entirely different scale from many other companies, so they often ARE capable of using superior materials.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Plastic and salt water don't really agree with each other. In fact salt water doesn't agree with most things.

dmitriid 4y ago

> No idea. All the owners of that model of iphone. I have no clue how many units were sold. How is that important? So, you have no idea how many were affected, but "all users". How is that important? If it was 1% of 1% of users affected, then it's probably better than most diving equipment. If it's 99%, then it's bad. > Let's ignore that until a better source is given. And yet, when we talk about Apple it's "I don't know, all of them". Hm... > In any event, those are companies that have sold millions of units. So has Apple. Your point? > that few rich hobbyists will do that, and no professional diver. How is that relevant to your implicit trust in diving computers and explicit mistrust in Apple because of something that happened 12 years ago to an unknown percentage of users for a phone that in first three days sold more than probably all dive computers are being sold in a year. > I'm sure failures and issues will come out, but not in the same numbers, I wonder if you realise that individual models from various dive computer makers are probably selling in the same numbers as what's expected from Apple Watch Ultra. And yet, you trust them implicitly.

bombolo 4y ago
> So, you have no idea how many were affected, but "all users". How is that important? If it was 1% of 1% of users affected, then it's probably better than most diving equipment. If it's 99%, then it's bad. I like how you like to make up random numbers with no data to sound very scientific :) > And yet, when we talk about Apple it's "I don't know, all of them". Hm... That's because I don't provide random forum posts of something happening to 1 person as "this happens to every user". > So has Apple. Your point? Apple has sold millions of scuba diving apple watches to active scuba divers??? Do you have a source on this unbelievable fact you just made up? > How is that relevant The thing is that I base my opinions on data, and at the moment there is no existing data. You on the other hand just type numbers to justify your opinions, and call that "data". So it is relevant because apple watch will never see intensive scuba diving use, and will thus experience fewer total failures, because of not being used as much. Like, a car driving constantly breaks way more often than a car that is just being displayed. Doesn't necessarily mean that the display car is better because it doesn't fail. > I wonder if you realise that individual models from various dive computer makers are probably selling in the same numbers as what's expected from Apple Watch Ultra. I wonder if you realise instead of buying 1 apple watch you can buy 2 diving computers, have excellent redundancy and save 500$.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > I like how you like to make up random numbers with no data to sound very scientific :) Says the person whose answer is "I don't know". I told you why knowing the percentage of people affected is important. You just dismiss it. > Apple has sold millions of scuba diving apple watches to active scuba divers??? No. Apple has sold millions of devices. Which is important when discussing failure rates. > The thing is that I base my opinions on data, and at the moment there is no existing data. No. You base your opinion on "I don't know, all of them, only rich people will use Ultra so issues will not in the same numbers". That's no data. That's pure speculation. You don't even have failure stats for dive computers, do you? Even given that each particular model of a dive computer is used by potentially as many people as those "only rich people who will use watch ultra". But sure, "dive computers are used in an activity that can kill you", and the internet is littered with "What happens if your dive computer fails" articles. Dive computer manufacturers explicitly call this put in their manuals [1] And there are literally no standards for verification of dive computers, manufacturers routinely lie about their certifications or skip them [2] And yet. "I wouldn't trust Apple unlike these manufacturers that have sold millions of devices because data!" [1] E.g. Suunto: https://ns.suunto.com/Manuals/D6i/Userguides/Suunto_D6i_UserGuide_EN.pdf https://ns.suunto.com/Manuals/D6i/Userguides/Suunto_D6i_User... page 4 [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295967776_Dive_computers_the_need_for_validation_and_standards https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295967776_Dive_comp...

microtherion 4y ago

> I'm sure apple™plastic™ is no more resistant than regular plastic. I would not know about the specific area of dive computers, but in general, Apple can and does conduct materials research and procurement on an entirely different scale from many other companies, so they often ARE capable of using superior materials.

bombolo 4y ago
Plastic and salt water don't really agree with each other. In fact salt water doesn't agree with most things.