"No, it's because Phillips are designed to cam out, but it's a bad design because doing so damages the head. That's why there have been so many replacement designs, from Posidriv on."
"Phillips screws are suitable for things that are screwed together once, and are never intended to be unscrewed again. Anything beyond that risks a stuck screw because the head's been stripped."
And the reason we're talking about Phillips screws is because the kit in TFA is one that supplies Phillips screws as replacements for the standard Pentalobe screws.
Now the fact you didn't follow the context of the thread is your own fault. It doesn't mean there was anything wrong with my posts.
As to "getting the business", it's pretty straightforward. I distinguished "ordinary users" from "techies". A techie is equipped to do his job. One of the less onerous things a techie has is a toolcase, which, if they do or want to include servicing Apple products will include pentalobe drivers.
When did Ron Paul, for example, "avoid" an issue? On the contrary, he was very outspoken about any issue anyone cared to raise with him.
You're missing the point. Because he has zero chance of becoming president, he can promise anything he likes, knowing he won't have to deliver.
As to dishonesty, I don't follow his politics closely, but his personal action of trying to use the UN to take the RonPaul.com web domain without paying for it is certainly an example of hypocrisy.
The end result being that many people just end up stripping those pentalobe screws completely bare because they use the wrong security screwdriver for the job. And then, it's no longer just the user who's locked out of his/her hardware, it's the Apple technician who can't get into the case without breaking it.
A stripped head shouldn't mean breaking things. Drill the head off with a Dremmel. Then use small mole grips on the exposed shank.
And don't make out the need to do so is more frequent with pentalobe than it would be with phillips.
So let me get this straight -- are you putting forth the argument that Apple chose to use pentalobe screws for their customers' convenience? That they wanted to ensure that the heads wouldn't be stripped by the frequent screwing/unscrewing that they could expect?
The world is more complicated than the single reason for everything attitude of most posters.
For sure Pentalobe was chosen to discourage ordinary users from opening their devices. Yet it presents no barrier for techies, whether in the employ of Apple or not.
And it IS a better screw design, less easily damaged, whoever opens up the device.
What's idiotic - over tightening the screws on a delicate electronic device, or using 'moron-resistant' screws that are designed to prevent people from over tightening fasteners (which, in the case of delicate electronics, tends to have a "shit I broke it" effect)?
Fase dichotomy. For phone sized electronics you're going to be using jewellers screwdrivers, and you're not going to be overtightening to the extent of damaging the phone. But they will still strip a percentage of the Phillips heads you use them on.
Phillips makes sense when assembling something cheap, using a generic electric screwdriver. It's far from the best solution for hand screwing screws in electronics.
Probably because you're using the wrong size bit for the job.
No, it's because Phillips are designed to cam out, but it's a bad design because doing so damages the head. That's why there have been so many replacement designs, from Posidriv on.
Phillips screws are suitable for things that are screwed together once, and are never intended to be unscrewed again. Anything beyond that risks a stuck screw because the head's been stripped.
Or, the little bugger is so rust-caked that it has become one with the surface it fastens to.
Sure it does. The more torque you can apply without stripping the head, the more likely you are to dislodge the rust. You're far more likely to be able to remove a Torx or Allen screw for example than a Phillips screw.
The word design doesn't appear once in your response. You don't even know the topic I'm talking about. Of course you can program a UI that resizes. That doesn't make it a good design.
apps just flow left to right and use swiping, or else need to change layouts when below a certain size.
You mean above a certain size. The left/right drill down or swipe design is fine for small phones. It's larger tablet sizes when it starts to be a bit hokey for many uses.
"No one else would claim a band-aid means there's no injury."
Then convince me!
Check out all the comments under the story. Literally no one but you is trying to claim that there's no problem because there's the support library. No one.
People who use absolute instead of relative sizing have the same problems on the web.
No, the web is different. On the web, fluid design only adapts for width. It typically extends the length as the width narrows in order to keep displaying essential content. So whether or not the design needs vertical scrolling is typically random. That's bad design for a native app. Native apps have screens such as lists or documents that are intended to scroll, and other screens that are not intended to scroll.
A native app shouldn't leave the vertical to chance.
Furthermore, the web compromises when it comes to background bitmaps. They are either repeated, or they show gaps around the edges, or are clipped. For native apps we do better. A background that is designed specifically for a given screen size will always be better.
Just as desktop apps are designed for the user to change the window size, smart phone apps are designed knowing that there are lots of different screen sizes. So on that point it is effectively identical.
That's far from identical. On a given phone the size is fixed. For a desktop, the user can change the size of the window. So for example on a desktop, if a toolbar is missing an item, the user can widen the window to include it. On a phone they can't. On a desktop they accept the idea that if they resize to a smaller window than the application needs, they get scroll bars to move around. On a native mobile app, scroll bars shouldn't appear simply because the natural app size is larger than the screen.
But even that doesn't cover it. The actual best UI design can change fundamentally as the device size changes. On a reasonably large device, say a tablet, a split screen can be a great design for apps that have hierarchical objects. On a phone, it's probably too small for that to work well, so a different design is better.
A mobile app design for a specific screen size will always be a better design than one that has to cope with random screen sizes.
He has a 1st generation iPod Touch, a six year old device. Shipped with iPhone OS v1. That's certainly too old to be supported.
Similarly the magic pixie dust that you think the Android Support Library is only supplies partial API support gojng back to API Level 4. Users of level 1 to 3 are out of luck.
Neither platform has support going back to phones with the first OS version.
But that's NOT the problem Android Compatibility Library is a band aid for. It's a Band Aid over the problem that with Android, MOST users are using a years old version of the OS. That's not true of iOS. 93% of iOS users are on the latest OS version.
Too busy to make a few million bucks for an afternoon's work. Yet enough time to read and post to Slashdot. That's some weird kind of busy you've got there.
For sure, profitable mobile app development looks far easier from the outside.
And with Android you won't sell to a huge fraction of those. You'll end up switching to an adware model in the hope of making up some of the development cost.
Alternatively you could do car washing for an even smaller initial expenditure. Startup costs: A bucket: $2, a pack of cloths: $1, detergent $1. You're done for $4.
Slashdot Mirror
People would be complaining about the shape, and the fact that it doesn't use Phillips screws.
The information "sold out" means nothing unless we know how many they released.
ANd the post before that, by me, said:
"No, it's because Phillips are designed to cam out, but it's a bad design because doing so damages the head. That's why there have been so many replacement designs, from Posidriv on."
"Phillips screws are suitable for things that are screwed together once, and are never intended to be unscrewed again. Anything beyond that risks a stuck screw because the head's been stripped."
And the reason we're talking about Phillips screws is because the kit in TFA is one that supplies Phillips screws as replacements for the standard Pentalobe screws.
Now the fact you didn't follow the context of the thread is your own fault. It doesn't mean there was anything wrong with my posts.
As to "getting the business", it's pretty straightforward. I distinguished "ordinary users" from "techies". A techie is equipped to do his job. One of the less onerous things a techie has is a toolcase, which, if they do or want to include servicing Apple products will include pentalobe drivers.
When did Ron Paul, for example, "avoid" an issue? On the contrary, he was very outspoken about any issue anyone cared to raise with him.
You're missing the point. Because he has zero chance of becoming president, he can promise anything he likes, knowing he won't have to deliver.
As to dishonesty, I don't follow his politics closely, but his personal action of trying to use the UN to take the RonPaul.com web domain without paying for it is certainly an example of hypocrisy.
but hadn't really thought deeply about issues like, "how do you try a foreign terrorist held at Guantanamo in a civilian court?"
You're so right. That's exactly the kind of thing a constitutional lawyer wouldn't have given a moment's thought to. /s
Very impressive debating there gatfirls. You must be proud of that argument.
The end result being that many people just end up stripping those pentalobe screws completely bare because they use the wrong security screwdriver for the job. And then, it's no longer just the user who's locked out of his/her hardware, it's the Apple technician who can't get into the case without breaking it.
A stripped head shouldn't mean breaking things. Drill the head off with a Dremmel. Then use small mole grips on the exposed shank.
And don't make out the need to do so is more frequent with pentalobe than it would be with phillips.
It most certainly does present a barrier to techs. You have to go waste money on a special tool for the perfect reason of _______.
Getting the business?
Of course, you may have something to back up what makes this design "better" and "less easily damaged" compared to the dozens of other like designs.
Straw man. I said it's better than Phillips, not ever other screw. And it is better than Phillips.
My point of view is completely invalid then.
I'm glad you've come around.
So let me get this straight -- are you putting forth the argument that Apple chose to use pentalobe screws for their customers' convenience? That they wanted to ensure that the heads wouldn't be stripped by the frequent screwing/unscrewing that they could expect?
The world is more complicated than the single reason for everything attitude of most posters.
For sure Pentalobe was chosen to discourage ordinary users from opening their devices. Yet it presents no barrier for techies, whether in the employ of Apple or not.
And it IS a better screw design, less easily damaged, whoever opens up the device.
What's idiotic - over tightening the screws on a delicate electronic device, or using 'moron-resistant' screws that are designed to prevent people from over tightening fasteners (which, in the case of delicate electronics, tends to have a "shit I broke it" effect)?
Fase dichotomy. For phone sized electronics you're going to be using jewellers screwdrivers, and you're not going to be overtightening to the extent of damaging the phone. But they will still strip a percentage of the Phillips heads you use them on.
Phillips makes sense when assembling something cheap, using a generic electric screwdriver. It's far from the best solution for hand screwing screws in electronics.
Probably because you're using the wrong size bit for the job.
No, it's because Phillips are designed to cam out, but it's a bad design because doing so damages the head. That's why there have been so many replacement designs, from Posidriv on.
Phillips screws are suitable for things that are screwed together once, and are never intended to be unscrewed again. Anything beyond that risks a stuck screw because the head's been stripped.
Or, the little bugger is so rust-caked that it has become one with the surface it fastens to.
Sure it does. The more torque you can apply without stripping the head, the more likely you are to dislodge the rust. You're far more likely to be able to remove a Torx or Allen screw for example than a Phillips screw.
Straw man.
The word design doesn't appear once in your response. You don't even know the topic I'm talking about. Of course you can program a UI that resizes. That doesn't make it a good design.
apps just flow left to right and use swiping, or else need to change layouts when below a certain size.
You mean above a certain size. The left/right drill down or swipe design is fine for small phones. It's larger tablet sizes when it starts to be a bit hokey for many uses.
Because phillips heads are easily damaged when screwing and unscrewing them. And pentalobe aren't.
If you think that screws using a better but less popular standard are "handcuffs", then you're a bit of a drama queen.
"No one else would claim a band-aid means there's no injury."
Then convince me!
Check out all the comments under the story. Literally no one but you is trying to claim that there's no problem because there's the support library. No one.
People who use absolute instead of relative sizing have the same problems on the web.
No, the web is different. On the web, fluid design only adapts for width. It typically extends the length as the width narrows in order to keep displaying essential content. So whether or not the design needs vertical scrolling is typically random. That's bad design for a native app. Native apps have screens such as lists or documents that are intended to scroll, and other screens that are not intended to scroll.
A native app shouldn't leave the vertical to chance.
Furthermore, the web compromises when it comes to background bitmaps. They are either repeated, or they show gaps around the edges, or are clipped. For native apps we do better. A background that is designed specifically for a given screen size will always be better.
Just as desktop apps are designed for the user to change the window size, smart phone apps are designed knowing that there are lots of different screen sizes. So on that point it is effectively identical.
That's far from identical. On a given phone the size is fixed. For a desktop, the user can change the size of the window. So for example on a desktop, if a toolbar is missing an item, the user can widen the window to include it. On a phone they can't. On a desktop they accept the idea that if they resize to a smaller window than the application needs, they get scroll bars to move around. On a native mobile app, scroll bars shouldn't appear simply because the natural app size is larger than the screen.
But even that doesn't cover it. The actual best UI design can change fundamentally as the device size changes. On a reasonably large device, say a tablet, a split screen can be a great design for apps that have hierarchical objects. On a phone, it's probably too small for that to work well, so a different design is better.
A mobile app design for a specific screen size will always be a better design than one that has to cope with random screen sizes.
The original argument that these users are holding Android back is shown to be invalid because of the support library.
Show invalid? Strangely, even though there have been Android developers commenting on this story, you're the only one that's trying to claim that.
No one else would claim a band-aid means there's no injury.
Who's been selling a head mounted camera for $50,000?
He has a 1st generation iPod Touch, a six year old device. Shipped with iPhone OS v1. That's certainly too old to be supported.
Similarly the magic pixie dust that you think the Android Support Library is only supplies partial API support gojng back to API Level 4. Users of level 1 to 3 are out of luck.
Neither platform has support going back to phones with the first OS version.
But that's NOT the problem Android Compatibility Library is a band aid for. It's a Band Aid over the problem that with Android, MOST users are using a years old version of the OS. That's not true of iOS. 93% of iOS users are on the latest OS version.
Too busy to make a few million bucks for an afternoon's work. Yet enough time to read and post to Slashdot. That's some weird kind of busy you've got there.
For sure, profitable mobile app development looks far easier from the outside.
And with Android you won't sell to a huge fraction of those. You'll end up switching to an adware model in the hope of making up some of the development cost.
There's always somebody that buys every phone. Even Microsoft Kin in it's 43 days on the market didn't have zero sales. Somebody bought it.
Compare and contrast with:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=1
One of these companies has got it very wrong.
Alternatively you could do car washing for an even smaller initial expenditure. Startup costs: A bucket: $2, a pack of cloths: $1, detergent $1. You're done for $4.