Backwards S-Pen Can Permanently Damage Note 5

tlhIngan writes: Samsung recently released a new version of its popular Galaxy Note series phablet, the Note 5. However, it turns out that there is a huge design flaw in the design of its pen holder (which Samsung calls the S-pen). If you insert it backwards (pointy end out instead of in), it's possible for it get stuck damaging the S-pen detection features. While it may be possible to fix it (Ars Technica was able to, Android Police was not), there's also a chance that your pen is also stuck the wrong way in permanently as the mechanism that holds the pen in grabs the wrong end and doesn't let go.

Comments

Moronic

[damicatz]

This is a perfect example of over-engineering; designing something for flash rather than functionality. It reminds me of the Tesla and people getting locked out of their cars because someone thought it would be a good idea to have retracting door handles (complete with all the moving parts that can break down).

What is wrong with a simple slot for the pen? Why do you need an ejection mechanism? All that does is add unnecessary parts and over complicate the design.

Re:Moronic

[Fire_Wraith]

It's also easily resolved by having a design that assumes the user might accidentally attempt to insert the pen the wrong way. If you're not assuming that your users are going to do something dumb like that, you should recheck your assumptions, because in a mass-market product I can virtually guarantee that someone is going to at some point. That's why you design the pen such that the back end is shaped slightly differently than the front end, and with just a little extra plastic back there, it becomes impossible to insert it end first.

Re:Moronic

[Dog-Cow]

Most users are not dumb. Most users simply assume that the worst thing to happen when inserting the wrong way is for it to not work. The only dumb ones are the designers/engineers who didn't take into account completely normal human behavior and expectations.

Re:Moronic

[wonkey_monkey]

Probability of fuck up at each attempt: 0.001
Probability of no fuck up at one attempt: 0.999

Probability of two no-fuck-ups in a row: 0.999*0.999
Probability of x no-fuck-ups in a row: 0.999^x
Five attempts per day, for a year, is 1825 attempts in total.
So, probability of getting to the end of the year without a fuck up: 0.999^1825 = 0.16
Probabilty of not getting to the end of the year without a fuck up (i.e., having a fuck up): 1 - 0.16 = 0.84.

84% chance of having a fuck up in a year.

I think it's called the multiplying-things-together-a-bunch-of-times function.

TL:DR; You calculate the chances of it never happening (there's only one way for it to never happen, whereas there are many ways for it to happen - on day one, on day two, etc) and subtract them from 1.

LOL ...

[gstoddart]

So ... "you're holding it wrong" for the win?

Nope, not a bad industrial design, but it's pilot error.

In the real world, humans aren't always going to do these things as you envisioned them. If you can't design to account for this stuff, you're doing it wrong.

Like in software QA you pretty much try to do everything you shouldn't just to see what happens ... in this kind of design, you give it to someone who is going to try every thing your engineers have said "nobody would ever do that", and find out just how badly they've done.

If it shouldn't be put in that way, you should probably ensure it physically can't be put in that way without a hammer. Because someone will do it wrong.

Sorry, but the human monkey seldom acts according to the idealized assumptions of engineers and product designers. Which means you should be assuming your assumptions are wrong.