Nissan moves around 5.5 million units a year. GM moves around 10 million vehicles a year. Toyato around 17 million a year
Tesla is more like Maserati than a general car company (similar regard, similar volumes of sales, similar pricing). Maserati is only a small slice of FCAU, and FCAU market cap is less than half of GM.
I think battery can be competitve, as for many drivers and conditions, the drawbacks are less severe. On the other hand, the amount of maintenance required is significantly reduced compared to an internal combustion engine. Of course, I don't see how Tesla is somehow magically more advantaged, particularly since Nissan has moved a lot more leaf vehicles than Tesla has moved any vehicle.
Yes, they have real product and companies are acheiving goals, so it's not empty.
However, it's not 'worth more than General Motors' degree of success either. Also no signs that will change any time soon, *maybe* in a decade. It's certainly premature for the valuation to be where it is already, whatever your optimism is for the companies chances.
The Model 3 will have to be judged when it releases. Whether Tesla can really fare better than the traditional automakers when faced with having to support sales of 3 million or cars or more annually is *very* far away. It's much easier to do a lot of these things when you sell on the order of 50k vehicles a year compared to 3 million a year that the likes of GM and Nissan have to deal with.
Except Tesla's sales are not that higher than GMs when sticking to elecric vehicles. For GM a lifetime sales of 150k is dismal and hard to justify existance, for Tesla, 150k lifetime sales is roughly their whole sales. Somehow Tesla is viewed as wildly succeeding, despite not moving any more units than the 'pathetic' GM....
134,500 Volts sold, 1,741 Bolts sold 2,958 ELR sold Spark EV I could only find three year old numbers, at the time it was 2,958 sold.
25,000 model x sold 158,159 Model S sold
Tesla's *total* car sales do marginally outpace GMs electrified cars, but not overwhelmingly so. Also, GM sells a *lot* more cars than the electric vehicles. Note that in a year in the US alone, GM sells over 3 million cars, an order of magnitude more sales than Tesla has had in it's entire existence.
The valuation on Tesla is insane, just like all the 'unicorn' ones, investors obsessed with new and novel behaving irrationally. One could charitably say it's because of hyperloop and such, but I think that's pushing credibility far.
Well, their 'weird ass ambition' was to capitalize on the movement toward mobile devices and get there first with a 'Continuum-like' UI.
Of the OS projects, only Canonical and Microsoft got caught up in this worry. The reality was that things weren't moving, it's that mobile was augmenting the experience. I doubt you can find a Linux user from 2006 who ditched their desktop for a phone or tablet, for example. Yes, some very casual users might have managed to switch totally to phone or desktop, but everyone I know will at least still open up a laptop from time to time. The market changes from one of aggressive evolution to plateau coinciding with the meteoric rise of phones was mistaken for people throwing out their laptops for phones.
The biggest question is whether Ubuntu will truly carry on. It's structured as a business, and as a business has *never* made any sense. In pursuit of being carried on as a business, will it be changed. Can it transition to being a community project rather than business driven?
Coming from the person who opened 'bug 1' as 'microsoft has the top market share'. I agreed with the Shuttleworth of that time, Windows gets a whole lot wrong (of course back in the day, Linux was competing against single-user Windows, which was miles worse, but MS's uneven evolution into a robust operating system has very little to admire, and a whole lot of stuff that isn't so good).
But anyway, generally it's not 'the same people', that's what it feels like when you see criticism on all sides, but generally people are consistent.
On Mir, you had people thinking it was a bit silly given Xorg, and on the other hand you had people thinking (seemingly now accurately) that Mir was a distraction and wasn't realistically going to deliver what Canonical wanted: To mature faster than Wayland, but not have substantially different goals.
Canonical on the phone received skepticism as it came on the heels of repeated varying failed ventures into non-conventional territory (and some of those being exceptionally silly and not baked at all, just a concept to toss out at a conference to fish for interest). Also, the convergence story is something that people have complained about since Windows 8 started getting tested, it was not something that Canonical uniquely got criticized for, just that they got caught up in the converged story and the desktop experience suffers for trying to accommodate scaling down to a phone interface. Those who understand how operating systems work and how similar the design of computing devices get caught up in the assumption that people must be annoyed by things not being cohesive, when in practice it seems people have repeatedly overwhelmingly chosen to have distinct devices that focus exclusively on different usage scenarios.
In terms of Android vs. iPhone and not much alternatives, frankly that market is so casual (even most enthusiasts deal with their mobile device as a casual thing and focus their enthusiast bent on other systems), so people aren't caring that much that there aren't more competitors, simply because they have other things to worry abut.
People didn't rail much against Gnome 2, they railed against Gnome 3, since after giving Gnome 2 pretty much the title of 'de facto' interface, Gnome 3 was so dramatically different, and shoved down everyone's throat by carrying the 'gnome' brand (again, with many HIG changes specifically for Tablets and small screens that didn't really pan out). Rather than trying to float the concept as a different thing to displace, it was called 'gnome 3'.
I guess the short of it is, he is suffering some frustration with the reality that trying to do Ubuntu as a business has failed as his ability to fund it has run out and there's no external investment for a company that never makes money. So now the question should become whether or not Ubuntu can continue as a volunteer effort, particularly with changes in Debian. Ubuntu's exceptional ambitions (Unity, Phone, TV, Music store, amazon integrated into desktop search, etc) will not be missed by many folks, leaving the core original success of a reasonably paced debian derivative with integrated attention to practical things like codecs and drivers even if not 100% libre. Painfully this means that his employee count is not sustainable and a lot of good folks will have to go other ways. Financially he repeatedly pursued potentially interesting, albeit unlikely revenue streams and you can only do that so much without success before it's not feasible to continue.
Ubuntu trying to run as a viable business? Ok, now it's really screwed as a distro.
Canonical never could figure out a profitable way forward (hence all those failed experiments). They had some brand value in a niche market, but could never figure out how to monetize it.
I would say Debian isn't a test bed for server or anything, it's just a project about open source enthusiasm, with a pretty conservative tilt.
Fedora is in effect the test bed for technologies going into RHEL, but I think it's perhaps fair to say it's the playground for the developers to indulge their enthusiasm. Working on a stable OS that business customers want is soul crushing for developers that want to try new and different things, Fedora is a good way for them to satisfy the need to deliver novel code aggressively. This means that if you are a user fanatically obsessed with the latest and greatest, but not quite into building the upstream packages yourself, Fedora isn't such a bad distribution. Of course, that's not too many people that indiscriminately care about getting the bleeding edge of every package, versus a mostly stable and 'boring' environment for most or all of the software, and specific repoes or building yourself for some key projects if those specific ones are of interest.
The robust support for managing applications versus application windows (e.g. alt-h would quickly mask all windows of an application). Interestingly, Gnome shell at least has alt-tab, alt-above tab to facilitate switching between applications versus windows, it's one of the things they actually do right for me (though it's jarring for those who just do windows alt-tab). The shared menubar would have been preferable to the general gnome approach of generally ditching menubars alltogether.
Except how macOS actually gets some sort of utility out of that top bar. Gnome pretty much wastes the space by going very far out of their way to keep anything remotely possibly useful off of it (no window title list, no tray icons, not *really* any menus) and so it sits there as this ugly black waste of space with a few things on it. Minimalism might have been ok, but instead of striving to be minimalist to make way for utilitarian use of screen space, it is minimalist *and* wastes the screen space.
On Fedora, my complaint is they are too purist and also too aggressive about 'mid-release' updates. If I have nvidia graphics, I get to live in a world where any random yum update will take me to a kernel that has zero nVidia support. Any of my random desktop apps could get a major version bump with UI redesign. With ubuntu release discipline, I pretty much only have to worry about that when dist-upgrade time comes.
I personally haven't seen a lot of practical difference between apt and yum and ppa and copr nowadays. I do recall back in the day being utterly perplexed that RH went the yum route, when apt-rpm existed, if they were so attached to rpm (for whatever reason). Nowadays both rpm and deb are about equally good (though at least in some ways developing rpms can be easier), as are apt and dnf/yum.
Ubuntu's challenge is they had success by being 'boring'. They collected the recent stable releases at a given point in time and released them in a well managed distribution. They were more aggressive than Debian, but not as over the top as RedHat/Fedora. (Fedora strategy is a slight step up from RedHat before. RedHat before would go to pre-release major software and then *never update*, Fedora at least avoids pre-release software, though they do embrace major changes whenever they feel like it, meaning it's not a stable desktop experience).
Ubuntu's problems crept in as they got these weird ass ambitions. They were going to make their own DE, their own UI design, their own display server. They didn't have good ideas and they really didn't have the talent to even execute on those ideas very well.
Of course it is ostensibly a business endeavor, and as a business endeavor, it has never found a viable path.
I know this will go over badly, but I really wish WindowMaker had compositing support, for window scaling to help me find the windows I need. If it had that, it would be my window manager again in a heartbeat (full 'desktop environments' have been overrated).
Consistency should not be the one and only goal. If that's all we wanted, we could have just rolled with whatever Microsoft felt like handing down.
I'm unhappy that pretty much all the major linux distros are the same nowadays, with RedHat pretty much calling the shots for everyone. Particularly since I disagree with them on much of their recent vision. Nowadays whether I choose Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Fedora, or OpenSuSE, it's all substantially the same thing: whatever RedHat thinks it should be. Sure there's this big divide in deb versus rpm, but that's far less relevant day to day than the software stack that gets installed.
Of course, Mir and Unity weren't exactly the things I really would have favored.
Gnome is interesting, in that I think in terms of relaibilty/quality, it does quite well. However UI wise it's frustrating and a bit too high and mighty. Customize your desktop? Only if you are a programmer, otherwise you are stuck with what they give you. They think a tray is 'evil' and endeavor to punish apps trying to do tray things by making them massively annoying by default (requiring 'topicons plus' for remotely sane behavior). They finally have some semblance of window search, but the UI is atrocious, making their expose rip off of limited utility.
KDE tends to have a more compatibile UI vision with me, but too many glitchy behaviors crop up every time I go to use it, and not-quite fully executed concepts.
I'm encouraged by MATE's recent porting to GTK3, though the time it took was a worrying sign of how well they will do at keeping currency moving forward.
What really disappoints me is that GNUstep/Windowmaker has not gotten more care and feeding. I still enjoy the experience, but without compositing and particularly scaling windows with some sort of search, I just can't bring myself to use it.
I've seen m.2 modules for a while, but overwhelmingly they are still SATA, and M.2 has had PCIe capability, but largely ignored by the device makers.
One challenge with the PCIe connectivitiy is that 4 lanes of PCIe is an awful lot to ask to spare for a single device, and there isn't a lot of urgent need for better SSD performance, interestingly enough.
They are saying that SSD cache of HDD is rare because most people only have one device, but somehow by being more expensive per GB, this has a better chance of being a common configuration? This pitch is sufficiently convoluted I can't help but to wonder how worried/challenged they must be to find a wider market for the technology, given the price point.
This seems to be an unfortunate reality of PC storage, the vast majority of the market is entrenched in 'good enough'. Even NVMe is a relative rarity, despite getting more performance out of NAND SSD than SATA connection. A bump for the general order of magnitude improvement that is NAND.
A better angle could be to replace additional memory capacity (sometimes padded out for more disk cache) with an Optane, but even then most desktops seem 'fine' at 4GB of ram. This *is* much cheaper than ram, and probably fast enough so that we don't *need* to cache to ram, so that might not be so bad.
Either way, if the *starting* point is Samsung's process, it paints a picture that is more advantageous to Samsung than others. That's the marketing collatoral Samsung wants, it doesn't need to just be rubber stamped.
Samsung competition is going to want to privately do improvements or collaborate without samsung, but privately, at least until the public forgets about the Note 7 Fiasco. They are not going to squander their relatively good image by giving the impression their house is not in order.
If anything, expect competition marketing push about how they have *always* been good and careful about battery testing, whether it's disingenuous or not.
No, don't *publicly* learn anything from the mistakes of others.
Maybe Samsung was more lax, or maybe they were just more lucky. Either way, their competition isn't going to do anything *publicly* to demonstrate a hint that it was luck rather than quality.
If competitor processes were lacking, but lucky, you can be certain they did (quietly) learn and improve.
Is Samsung. They are talking *loud* about something they purport to be a super better thing. It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.
So the competitors going along with it and making it look like Samsung is *leading* in battery safety would just play into Samsung's hands.
In terms of the actual relative merit, who knows, but from a perspective of marketable storytelling, it is very much not in the interest of Samsung's competitors to play up Samsung's process. If there is merit that their competitors are told about and recognize, expect them to silently improve their process, but in no way publicize that fact.
While true, there is something to be said that review sites gathering *all* opinions and presenting a single metric for all users of all preferences to see obliterates some depth. People who know will go and read more thoughtful reviews of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the Leaf has outsold them all. There are nearly twice as many Leaf vehicles sold as Tesla.
I don't buy for a second that Tesla has *that* much potential upside.
Tesla sells around 50k vehicles a year.
Nissan moves around 5.5 million units a year.
GM moves around 10 million vehicles a year.
Toyato around 17 million a year
Tesla is more like Maserati than a general car company (similar regard, similar volumes of sales, similar pricing). Maserati is only a small slice of FCAU, and FCAU market cap is less than half of GM.
I think battery can be competitve, as for many drivers and conditions, the drawbacks are less severe. On the other hand, the amount of maintenance required is significantly reduced compared to an internal combustion engine. Of course, I don't see how Tesla is somehow magically more advantaged, particularly since Nissan has moved a lot more leaf vehicles than Tesla has moved any vehicle.
I agree with you, though I do like the traditional car companies seeing:
1) Enough to make them worry and be competitive.
2) The amount of investor money up for grabs by being visibly innovative.
Yes, they have real product and companies are acheiving goals, so it's not empty.
However, it's not 'worth more than General Motors' degree of success either. Also no signs that will change any time soon, *maybe* in a decade. It's certainly premature for the valuation to be where it is already, whatever your optimism is for the companies chances.
The Model 3 will have to be judged when it releases. Whether Tesla can really fare better than the traditional automakers when faced with having to support sales of 3 million or cars or more annually is *very* far away. It's much easier to do a lot of these things when you sell on the order of 50k vehicles a year compared to 3 million a year that the likes of GM and Nissan have to deal with.
Except Tesla's sales are not that higher than GMs when sticking to elecric vehicles. For GM a lifetime sales of 150k is dismal and hard to justify existance, for Tesla, 150k lifetime sales is roughly their whole sales. Somehow Tesla is viewed as wildly succeeding, despite not moving any more units than the 'pathetic' GM....
134,500 Volts sold,
1,741 Bolts sold
2,958 ELR sold
Spark EV I could only find three year old numbers, at the time it was 2,958 sold.
25,000 model x sold
158,159 Model S sold
Tesla's *total* car sales do marginally outpace GMs electrified cars, but not overwhelmingly so. Also, GM sells a *lot* more cars than the electric vehicles. Note that in a year in the US alone, GM sells over 3 million cars, an order of magnitude more sales than Tesla has had in it's entire existence.
The valuation on Tesla is insane, just like all the 'unicorn' ones, investors obsessed with new and novel behaving irrationally. One could charitably say it's because of hyperloop and such, but I think that's pushing credibility far.
Well, their 'weird ass ambition' was to capitalize on the movement toward mobile devices and get there first with a 'Continuum-like' UI.
Of the OS projects, only Canonical and Microsoft got caught up in this worry. The reality was that things weren't moving, it's that mobile was augmenting the experience. I doubt you can find a Linux user from 2006 who ditched their desktop for a phone or tablet, for example. Yes, some very casual users might have managed to switch totally to phone or desktop, but everyone I know will at least still open up a laptop from time to time. The market changes from one of aggressive evolution to plateau coinciding with the meteoric rise of phones was mistaken for people throwing out their laptops for phones.
The biggest question is whether Ubuntu will truly carry on. It's structured as a business, and as a business has *never* made any sense. In pursuit of being carried on as a business, will it be changed. Can it transition to being a community project rather than business driven?
While silly, all sorts of things have little logos (OpenSSH has a logo, for example). I wouldn't have even known Wayland had a logo until mentioned.
Coming from the person who opened 'bug 1' as 'microsoft has the top market share'. I agreed with the Shuttleworth of that time, Windows gets a whole lot wrong (of course back in the day, Linux was competing against single-user Windows, which was miles worse, but MS's uneven evolution into a robust operating system has very little to admire, and a whole lot of stuff that isn't so good).
But anyway, generally it's not 'the same people', that's what it feels like when you see criticism on all sides, but generally people are consistent.
On Mir, you had people thinking it was a bit silly given Xorg, and on the other hand you had people thinking (seemingly now accurately) that Mir was a distraction and wasn't realistically going to deliver what Canonical wanted: To mature faster than Wayland, but not have substantially different goals.
Canonical on the phone received skepticism as it came on the heels of repeated varying failed ventures into non-conventional territory (and some of those being exceptionally silly and not baked at all, just a concept to toss out at a conference to fish for interest). Also, the convergence story is something that people have complained about since Windows 8 started getting tested, it was not something that Canonical uniquely got criticized for, just that they got caught up in the converged story and the desktop experience suffers for trying to accommodate scaling down to a phone interface. Those who understand how operating systems work and how similar the design of computing devices get caught up in the assumption that people must be annoyed by things not being cohesive, when in practice it seems people have repeatedly overwhelmingly chosen to have distinct devices that focus exclusively on different usage scenarios.
In terms of Android vs. iPhone and not much alternatives, frankly that market is so casual (even most enthusiasts deal with their mobile device as a casual thing and focus their enthusiast bent on other systems), so people aren't caring that much that there aren't more competitors, simply because they have other things to worry abut.
People didn't rail much against Gnome 2, they railed against Gnome 3, since after giving Gnome 2 pretty much the title of 'de facto' interface, Gnome 3 was so dramatically different, and shoved down everyone's throat by carrying the 'gnome' brand (again, with many HIG changes specifically for Tablets and small screens that didn't really pan out). Rather than trying to float the concept as a different thing to displace, it was called 'gnome 3'.
I guess the short of it is, he is suffering some frustration with the reality that trying to do Ubuntu as a business has failed as his ability to fund it has run out and there's no external investment for a company that never makes money. So now the question should become whether or not Ubuntu can continue as a volunteer effort, particularly with changes in Debian. Ubuntu's exceptional ambitions (Unity, Phone, TV, Music store, amazon integrated into desktop search, etc) will not be missed by many folks, leaving the core original success of a reasonably paced debian derivative with integrated attention to practical things like codecs and drivers even if not 100% libre. Painfully this means that his employee count is not sustainable and a lot of good folks will have to go other ways. Financially he repeatedly pursued potentially interesting, albeit unlikely revenue streams and you can only do that so much without success before it's not feasible to continue.
Ubuntu trying to run as a viable business? Ok, now it's really screwed as a distro.
Canonical never could figure out a profitable way forward (hence all those failed experiments). They had some brand value in a niche market, but could never figure out how to monetize it.
I would say Debian isn't a test bed for server or anything, it's just a project about open source enthusiasm, with a pretty conservative tilt.
Fedora is in effect the test bed for technologies going into RHEL, but I think it's perhaps fair to say it's the playground for the developers to indulge their enthusiasm. Working on a stable OS that business customers want is soul crushing for developers that want to try new and different things, Fedora is a good way for them to satisfy the need to deliver novel code aggressively. This means that if you are a user fanatically obsessed with the latest and greatest, but not quite into building the upstream packages yourself, Fedora isn't such a bad distribution. Of course, that's not too many people that indiscriminately care about getting the bleeding edge of every package, versus a mostly stable and 'boring' environment for most or all of the software, and specific repoes or building yourself for some key projects if those specific ones are of interest.
The robust support for managing applications versus application windows (e.g. alt-h would quickly mask all windows of an application). Interestingly, Gnome shell at least has alt-tab, alt-above tab to facilitate switching between applications versus windows, it's one of the things they actually do right for me (though it's jarring for those who just do windows alt-tab). The shared menubar would have been preferable to the general gnome approach of generally ditching menubars alltogether.
Except how macOS actually gets some sort of utility out of that top bar. Gnome pretty much wastes the space by going very far out of their way to keep anything remotely possibly useful off of it (no window title list, no tray icons, not *really* any menus) and so it sits there as this ugly black waste of space with a few things on it. Minimalism might have been ok, but instead of striving to be minimalist to make way for utilitarian use of screen space, it is minimalist *and* wastes the screen space.
On Fedora, my complaint is they are too purist and also too aggressive about 'mid-release' updates. If I have nvidia graphics, I get to live in a world where any random yum update will take me to a kernel that has zero nVidia support. Any of my random desktop apps could get a major version bump with UI redesign. With ubuntu release discipline, I pretty much only have to worry about that when dist-upgrade time comes.
I personally haven't seen a lot of practical difference between apt and yum and ppa and copr nowadays. I do recall back in the day being utterly perplexed that RH went the yum route, when apt-rpm existed, if they were so attached to rpm (for whatever reason). Nowadays both rpm and deb are about equally good (though at least in some ways developing rpms can be easier), as are apt and dnf/yum.
Probably less dead now...
Ubuntu's challenge is they had success by being 'boring'. They collected the recent stable releases at a given point in time and released them in a well managed distribution. They were more aggressive than Debian, but not as over the top as RedHat/Fedora. (Fedora strategy is a slight step up from RedHat before. RedHat before would go to pre-release major software and then *never update*, Fedora at least avoids pre-release software, though they do embrace major changes whenever they feel like it, meaning it's not a stable desktop experience).
Ubuntu's problems crept in as they got these weird ass ambitions. They were going to make their own DE, their own UI design, their own display server. They didn't have good ideas and they really didn't have the talent to even execute on those ideas very well.
Of course it is ostensibly a business endeavor, and as a business endeavor, it has never found a viable path.
I know this will go over badly, but I really wish WindowMaker had compositing support, for window scaling to help me find the windows I need. If it had that, it would be my window manager again in a heartbeat (full 'desktop environments' have been overrated).
Consistency should not be the one and only goal. If that's all we wanted, we could have just rolled with whatever Microsoft felt like handing down.
I'm unhappy that pretty much all the major linux distros are the same nowadays, with RedHat pretty much calling the shots for everyone. Particularly since I disagree with them on much of their recent vision. Nowadays whether I choose Ubuntu, Debian, Mint, Fedora, or OpenSuSE, it's all substantially the same thing: whatever RedHat thinks it should be. Sure there's this big divide in deb versus rpm, but that's far less relevant day to day than the software stack that gets installed.
Of course, Mir and Unity weren't exactly the things I really would have favored.
Gnome is interesting, in that I think in terms of relaibilty/quality, it does quite well. However UI wise it's frustrating and a bit too high and mighty. Customize your desktop? Only if you are a programmer, otherwise you are stuck with what they give you. They think a tray is 'evil' and endeavor to punish apps trying to do tray things by making them massively annoying by default (requiring 'topicons plus' for remotely sane behavior). They finally have some semblance of window search, but the UI is atrocious, making their expose rip off of limited utility.
KDE tends to have a more compatibile UI vision with me, but too many glitchy behaviors crop up every time I go to use it, and not-quite fully executed concepts.
I'm encouraged by MATE's recent porting to GTK3, though the time it took was a worrying sign of how well they will do at keeping currency moving forward.
What really disappoints me is that GNUstep/Windowmaker has not gotten more care and feeding. I still enjoy the experience, but without compositing and particularly scaling windows with some sort of search, I just can't bring myself to use it.
I've seen m.2 modules for a while, but overwhelmingly they are still SATA, and M.2 has had PCIe capability, but largely ignored by the device makers.
One challenge with the PCIe connectivitiy is that 4 lanes of PCIe is an awful lot to ask to spare for a single device, and there isn't a lot of urgent need for better SSD performance, interestingly enough.
They are saying that SSD cache of HDD is rare because most people only have one device, but somehow by being more expensive per GB, this has a better chance of being a common configuration? This pitch is sufficiently convoluted I can't help but to wonder how worried/challenged they must be to find a wider market for the technology, given the price point.
This seems to be an unfortunate reality of PC storage, the vast majority of the market is entrenched in 'good enough'. Even NVMe is a relative rarity, despite getting more performance out of NAND SSD than SATA connection. A bump for the general order of magnitude improvement that is NAND.
A better angle could be to replace additional memory capacity (sometimes padded out for more disk cache) with an Optane, but even then most desktops seem 'fine' at 4GB of ram. This *is* much cheaper than ram, and probably fast enough so that we don't *need* to cache to ram, so that might not be so bad.
Either way, if the *starting* point is Samsung's process, it paints a picture that is more advantageous to Samsung than others. That's the marketing collatoral Samsung wants, it doesn't need to just be rubber stamped.
Samsung competition is going to want to privately do improvements or collaborate without samsung, but privately, at least until the public forgets about the Note 7 Fiasco. They are not going to squander their relatively good image by giving the impression their house is not in order.
If anything, expect competition marketing push about how they have *always* been good and careful about battery testing, whether it's disingenuous or not.
No, don't *publicly* learn anything from the mistakes of others.
Maybe Samsung was more lax, or maybe they were just more lucky. Either way, their competition isn't going to do anything *publicly* to demonstrate a hint that it was luck rather than quality.
If competitor processes were lacking, but lucky, you can be certain they did (quietly) learn and improve.
Or alternatively "boy our process was garbage and we were lucky, but it is good now"
even if they were 'just' lucky, they'd never admit to it.
Is Samsung. They are talking *loud* about something they purport to be a super better thing. It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.
So the competitors going along with it and making it look like Samsung is *leading* in battery safety would just play into Samsung's hands.
In terms of the actual relative merit, who knows, but from a perspective of marketable storytelling, it is very much not in the interest of Samsung's competitors to play up Samsung's process. If there is merit that their competitors are told about and recognize, expect them to silently improve their process, but in no way publicize that fact.
While true, there is something to be said that review sites gathering *all* opinions and presenting a single metric for all users of all preferences to see obliterates some depth. People who know will go and read more thoughtful reviews of course.