3 ms·

> 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,

> 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...
  - bombolo 4y ago
    > Says the person whose answer is "I don't know". Better than the person who pretends to know :) > I told you why knowing the percentage of people affected is important. It's important… But I have no way of obtaining this information. > No. Apple has sold millions of devices. Which is important when discussing failure rates. :D We are talking about scuba diving specifically. I'm sure apple watches tell the time absolutely fine. What we are discussing here is their reliability under water while tracking the dives. Can you stop pretending being daft for a minute and admit there are comparatively very very few units that are used for this purpose? > 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. I base my opinion on being a diver and having held in my hands dive computers and watches. And an apple watch isn't so good in a dive. It's tiny, you won't even see the numbers if your mask is a bit foggy or the water isn't so clear. It's also harder to use. Do you know how a dive computer works? You put it on and jump in the water. When it touches water it turns on. You don't need to open the correct app and whatnot. > And yet. "I wouldn't trust Apple unlike these manufacturers that have sold millions of devices because data!" I wouldn't trust apple because my macbook fell apart, and so I understand that a flimsy watch won't be as sturdy as a sturdy dive computer. Anyway, please come back to me after trying scuba diving at least once.

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...
- bombolo 4y ago
  > Says the person whose answer is "I don't know". Better than the person who pretends to know :) > I told you why knowing the percentage of people affected is important. It's important… But I have no way of obtaining this information. > No. Apple has sold millions of devices. Which is important when discussing failure rates. :D We are talking about scuba diving specifically. I'm sure apple watches tell the time absolutely fine. What we are discussing here is their reliability under water while tracking the dives. Can you stop pretending being daft for a minute and admit there are comparatively very very few units that are used for this purpose? > 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. I base my opinion on being a diver and having held in my hands dive computers and watches. And an apple watch isn't so good in a dive. It's tiny, you won't even see the numbers if your mask is a bit foggy or the water isn't so clear. It's also harder to use. Do you know how a dive computer works? You put it on and jump in the water. When it touches water it turns on. You don't need to open the correct app and whatnot. > And yet. "I wouldn't trust Apple unlike these manufacturers that have sold millions of devices because data!" I wouldn't trust apple because my macbook fell apart, and so I understand that a flimsy watch won't be as sturdy as a sturdy dive computer. Anyway, please come back to me after trying scuba diving at least once.