The claim by the accountant could be that such interactions were lies: For example the accountant never talked to the client the times and places the client describes so there's no possible way that he/she screamed at the client. As for verbally harassment and legal action, that also could be lies too. That depends on what the accountant is pursuing .
Also, you had better have explicitly stated that everything was just in your own opinion, or else regardless of your intent, it can still be taken as defamatory.
What you're failing to realize is that facts can be proven or dis-proven and the courts care about facts. And if your facts are dis-proven then that goes towards credibility. If you said: "I didn't like the accountant; he was sloppy." That's an opinion that every court would throw out in a case against you. In this case the reviewer makes the claim that the final bill was double the original quote. That can be proven or dis-proven. If it turns out that the original quote and the bill were not that much different, then the reviewer lied in his review.
Even then, however, depending in the context, that may not be enough, because if you say that they did "sloppy" work, for example, and they can show that they had done absolutely everything that they were reasonably supposed to have done, based on the information they had at the time, even if you were not satisfied with the final result, then such a remark can easily be considered to still be a deliberately made false statement, unless you can also prove that you had no way to not realize they had done everything they were supposed to have (which requires proving a negative, which can often be extremely difficult), or if you can prove that they knew, or if you can offer a very substantial proof that they at least *should* have known it.
No where does it say "sloppy" claim is what the accountant is making a case about. The accountant can make a case about the cost of the work as that relates to facts.
Telling what can look like a deliberate lie to someone else and then only later saying that it was all just in your opinion *MIGHT* save your bacon, but it is quite far from foolproof... and remember, quite often all that something has to do to be considered sufficiently defamatory to merit legal consequences is *LOOK* like it was a deliberate false statement, even if it really was just an opinion.
The poster isn't saying that opinions are always protected. What he's saying is that opinions are far more protected that facts. Stating facts that can be dis-proven can be the downfall of a case.
If you adhere simply to the facts as you would have had every reason to have known them, leaving absolutely all opinion out of it, and allow the reader to come only to their own opinion, you are always entirely covered.
That relies on the assumption that the reviewer was telling the truth about the facts. The problem is that if they were not and were dis-proven then the reviewer looks dishonest in the eyes of the court.
In this case again, the reviewer said he was charged double. If the accountant proves that was a lie (by presenting a signed quote), then the reviewer can be held for stating lies.
Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.
Now we're just left with he-said-vs-she-said for the quoted price. Good luck proving that the reviewer didn't believe the original quote.
No one has to prove the "belief" of the reviewer. The accountant merely has to show that the reviewer was presented with a quote. It would be better for accountant if the reviewer signed the quote therefore acknowledging that the reviewer agreed with the quote.
"Yes, I asked about X, and he said 'about $Y', but then he charged me $2Y dollars." then the tax preparer immediately loses his case,
In what scenario of "he said, she said" would one party immediately lose a case after making a claim? The reviewer can claim his side of the story and the accountant can claim his side. Both have an opportunity to present evidence. For example if the accountant has email or texts from the reviewer saying that they wanted to file certain forms (which would cost more) then the accountant has a case that the reviewer agreed to increase the cost by having more work done.
and he's going to get counter-sued for a lot more than $2Y (think: court costs + tort claim).
In what scenario would that happen? A person can sue and get counter sued but there are more limits to a counter sue. The tort claim you imagine does not happen in most cases.
After some digging to find the actual review, it seemed fairly tame to me
I guess it's tame by Internet standards and your standards but would you use an accountant that the reviewer described. The problem for the reviewer is that it doesn't just have an opinion but also also verifiable facts.
Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled.
So here the reviewer doesn't say outright that the accountant was incompetent but he/she makes claims that can be verified.
1)What was the bill and what was the estimate? I've heard this complaint before with services in particular. A client doesn't like the service that he or she got which is understandable, but more importantly they also have a dispute on the cost. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding and sometimes it's the client who did not understand the estimate and terms of service. For example wedding photographers generally list every service and fee and the total bill can run into the thousands. Some people are outraged that after they spent thousands of dollars to find out they are being charged $150 for an assembled hard cover album when it was already in the estimate. So then people make up lies to get back at the photographer.
2) Did the reviewer actually use another accountant to re-do the work? Again I've heard this complaint before, and it sometimes it turns out not to be true. The reviewer unhappy with the cost could have made up a complete lie that the work had to be re-done to damage a reputation.
If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action.
Here is another claim that can be verified too. This might be the crux of the complaint. No one really wants to work with someone who screams at them and harasses them. In the many claims of "harassment" I've seen it's the defendant repeatedly trying to collect their money. Many times it also is the source of the "legal action". The person wants to be paid and will threaten legal action if not paid which is within their rights.
He's not wrong about the GPL. You only have to publish your changes if you distribute. If you use it personally and internally, you don't have to publish your source code. However many super computing environments are academic institutions who have no problems sharing their changes and modifications. But that doesn't mean all sites must. Some might fall under competing guidelines. For example, the top US computer is Titan at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is a national government laboratory so there might be a mandate to publicly share information but it also does military research so some of what it works is sensitive to national security concerns. The most likely use of their supercomputer is nuclear detonation simulations. So changes to Titan to make the computer faster in general could be published (network, latency, I/O, etc). Changes that made nuclear calculations faster might not be published.
The problem if you read the article is that China has tariffs on imported polysilicon so there is no "invisible hand" here. Worldwide polysilicon supply is not in danger. This is only a problem in China created by China.
The moon might have rare elements. Silicon is not a rare element as it is the most common element in the Earth's crust. The reason polysilicon is rare in China right now is that China imposed tariffs on imported polysilicon. The US and South Korea has plenty of polysilicon to sell to China; however, China made the tariff to import it from those countries high enough that it would not be profitable.
Indeed. It's not really a raw materials problem as an intermediate materials problem. What the industry lacks is domestic polysilicon. They could buy from the US and South Korea if their trade policies didn't make those sources so expensive.
That is only a reaction to your "Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple"
Please point out the logical flaw in that assertion unlike your assertion which had a major flaw in it.
You do realize there are time function working for something labeled as "the best"? When DisplayMate tested S6, it was the best they have ever tested, nothing was better better than S6 when DisplayMate tested it out.
I realize that there is a component of our existence called time. DisplayMate couldn't give iPhone X a better score than the S6 two years ago because of the linear nature of time in our existence. Again the major flaw with your Note 8 comparison is that DisplayMate reviewed the Note 8 weeks before the iPhone X not years before. You are again relying on the unproven premise that the displays must be different generations. A second major flaw in your thinking is that DisplayMate could not have rated the iPhone X lower than both displays. Of course the iPhone X could have been worse than a display two years ago (S6) or two weeks ago (Note 8). A newer generation does not necessarily imply better. But DisplayMate rated it higher.
But but but.. you don't know that " Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple", right? But you said it anyway,
Please show where the logical flaw is in that statement. I never said that I "know". I said "maybe" Apple did something whereas you've asserted that the displays are different generations.
Not logic, fact. And legally and financially true. There's a company named Samsung SDI [bloomberg.com], Samsung Electronics Co ltd [bloomberg.com], Samsung Display Co ltd [bloomberg.com], and Samsung Mobile Display Co Ltd [bloomberg.com]
This is what you said: "If we must follow your logic, how come Samsung Electronic is engaging ongoing Iegal battle with apple, and,b>SDI can still comfortably supply their display to Apple?"
You said SDI supplies their display to Apple. That's not factually true. SDI is no longer in the display business so they cannot supply Apple with any displays. Samsung Display Co is a completely different entity than SDI.
It is still a separate business entity from Samsung Electronics.
Samsung Display Co is a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics.
And lookup up on "Electronic Materials" on Samsung SDI page. One of them is electronic material for OLED displays. It even has a picture of smartphone on it
If you read the page it says "In 2014, we have developed high-efficiency electrode paste, deposition materials which makes OLED high-efficient and long-lasting, next generation CR material for high-resolution. In 2015, we also strive to take the dominance in the next generation core material market as well as existing market by developing OLED materials which we have been working on, next generation polarizing film and high luminance CR, etc."
Just because it has a picture of an OLED does not mean SDI makes OLEDs anymore. They showed a picture of a smartphone because showing a picture of "deposition materials" probably isn't as meaningful to the average person. It's clear that they make materials used in OLEDs just like Corning makes the Gorilla glass used in smartphones does not mean Corning makes smartphones. And when Corning shows off a picture of the Gorilla glass, they are going to show a picture of a smartphone, a tablet, etc because that's a primary usage.
No, Samsung Electronics has never manufacture and sell OLED display. Samsung Display which was part of Samsung Electronics, made LCD panel. In 2012 Samsung Electronics spun of it's LCD division to a separate company and merge it with Samsung Mobile Display, which does manufacture OLEDs.
Define "separate": Samsung Electronics owns at a majority stake (84.8%) of Samsung Display Co with S
So the United States Department of Justice is responsible for Qualcomm's regulatory problems in South Korea, China, and Taiwan? Are you sure about that?
[sarcasm]Clearly there is no way that scientists came up this research with decades ago and that they debated it for decades before consensus. No this was all invented by China recently to cover up their involvement with the Kennedy assassination and the Lindberg kidnapping.[/sarcasm]
There are 3 possibilities here.
1. Apple performed the calibration
2. someone else performed the calibration and display mate is wrong
3. someone else performed the calibration for Apple but display mate still credit them as the integrator
No there are than 2 possibilities here that are important. DisplayMate is right or they are wrong. Since they are in the businesses of displays it makes it their business to know about such things. You can believe them or not. It appears that you decide not to believe them because of your deep denial.
I am not denying any of the above 3 is possible. You are denying 2 and 3.
I have never denied 2 out of 3. Please show me where I said it. I said it's fairly standard for Apple (and any manufacturer) to do their own calibration on a part they buy. It's part of QA. Here's where your thoughts are completely one-dimensional: Parts vendors do their calibrations, too. But nothing precludes the buyer from doing one too. Comparing both vendor and buyer calibrations might pinpoint any problems that arise in shipping. For this case, shipping may not affect the readings; but in general how a part gets jostled and abused during shipping might affect the part.
Yes, I do. Please read the words you just quoted again. It,s one thing to misread. But it's another to make a point out of it over and over again. You are pathetic
Oh I did get that wrong. But you are still claiming that calibration isn't that important right?
A professional monitor has many different characteristics.
No. The one factor that makes a monitor "professional" has always been color accuracy.
The first 4k monitors may have been professional ones.
Not factually true The first 4K monitor was consumer not professional probably because I'm guessing the color accuracy requirements for the professional would have been hard to do at the time.
So at that time, the only way to get that resolution was to get a professional monitor
So what? That wasn't your point. Your point was that someone would get a professional monitor for the resolution not the color accuracy. Your point wasn't at the early days of 4K, a person would get a professional monitor just for the resolution.
That's because the scale is a measuring tool. A display is not a measuring tool. Anyway if you are testing a scale, you won't be calibrating it. You'll make sure (test) that it was properly calibrated. The calibration of the scale should happen during production, before QA.
Bahahaha. You are testing the function of the display to make sure it passes a specification but you're not going to calibrate anything to make sure your results are solid? There will be multiple calibrations done. Some will be done on the instrumentation. Like I said above: you can test the display before you calibrate it but the "before" results are not as important as the "after". It has to meet specifications after calibration not before.
No. It was your assertion that they know because it's their business to know. I simply replied with the fact that it's not their business.
I never claimed that they can't know because they rate displays.
Besides the part where you said: "I disagree It's their business to rate displays." Denial?
Yes I know that. You didn't seem to know however.
And yet you said the opposite: "Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating. " Denial?
Well you inferred it. As every display is different. Calibrating one out of two would be useless, an
That's your interpretation. Mine is that they credit Apple for the result, no matter if they do the calibration themselves or not.
The review says this: "But what makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration that Apple developed that transforms the OLED hardware into a superbly accurate, high performance, and gorgeous display!" It's not my interpretation. The review says it in plain English. Are you just in deep denial?
You didn't get what I wrote. Read my post again.
Your entire posts so far have been full of false dichotomies and red herrings. Face it, you're just in full denial mode.
I don't know, that quote isn't from me.
These are your exact words: "I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration..."
You asserted calibrations are "not that important". You asserted that you can't re-perform a calibration. Do you deny it?
Yes, both.
Your posts suggest otherwise. You've made numerous false statements about both.
Why not? I might need the resolution but not the accuracy.
Bahahahahaha. You do realize a professional monitor doesn't mean highest resolution monitor right? Professional monitors can be 1080p, 4k, or even 5k. The resolution isn't what puts them into the "professional monitor" category. The color accuracy specifically does.
I disagree. It's their business to rate displays.
False dichotomy: Your assertion that they can't know because they rate displays.
You are 100% wrong here. Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating.
Also it's possible that they do some random screening but do not even perform full tests on every iPhone produced.
Bahahahaha. Dude, I hope you never work for QA in any capacity. Part of testing is calibration. Before I can check any specs, I have to make sure my readings are accurate. How do I do that? Calibration. Even if I'm doing something as simple as weighing a part, calibrating the scale is part of the testing. You really should brush up on your testing and QA procedures. If I'm testing a display, I'm going to calibrate it. I'm going to calibrate all instrumentation. I might do tests before and after calibration but the before has limited use to pass it. But I'm going to calibrate it.
It's just as rampant speculation as saying that Apple needs to calibrate every single display themselves..
I never said that Apple must 100% calibrate every single display. Please show me above where I said that. You're just making things up. I said that Apple tests their parts like every manufacture. Testing would include calibration. This is basic manufacturing and QA.
We don't know. Perhaps it's already calibrated, perhaps it isn't. Unlike you, I don't rule out any possibility when I don't know
Please provide any evidence of what you say is true. You made this assertion. You can't can you? You're just speculating, aren't you?
Again, testing isn't the same as calibrating.
For someone who claims to know instrumentation you don't know that calibrating is often before testing.
So you disagree with the fact that a higher resolution display is better than a low resolution one, all other things being equal?
Only if you agree that Apple had a hand in making the display better.
That was exactly my point.
No it wasn't. Your point was never that the resolution made it more difficult to get better results. Your point has always been to deny Apple credit.
We don't know. Maybe they can do a lot, maybe they don't
The phones are weeks a part. There's no telling about the display.
Which was my point. You can't assert that they different generation of displays. Are you denying you made that assertion?
Where did that come from? How did you translate "They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple." to "Only Samsung has the best display"? Are you projecting your jealousy?
"For years Samsung had the best display on it own phone" precludes that all other manufacturers having the best displays. Including Apple. Including LG.
No, the S6, Note 5, S7, Note 7, S8, and Note 8 received "The Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested", the same accolade given to iPhone X. The iphone 7 merely received the best mobile LCD.
Again are you ignoring the part that the best OLED display was given to the iPhone X? Did you read the review on the Note 8 vs the iPhone X. The Note 8 got "Very Good" in a lot of marks whereas the iPhone X got "Excellent". I would say that the iPhone X beat out the Note 8.
You are when you assume that since the phone are only weeks apart then the difference in performance are the result of apple implementation.
No I'm specifically countering your assertion that 1) the iPhone X has a newer generation of display. You don't know that. 2) That having a newer generation display automatically translates into better performance. There have been many cases where something newer performs worse. For example, the Pentium 4 was not an upgrade to the Pentium III, etc.
Also I refer you to DisplayMate's review where they give the credit to Apple. It's in the review.
...They are actually different companies
Again by that logic: Apple mobile and Apple, Inc are different companies. Every single division within a company is a different company according to you. Legally and financially that's not true.
Then no company should have to answer under their brand? what does this have anything to do with the topic? If we must follow your logic, how come Samsung Electronic is engaging ongoing Iegal battle with apple, and SDI can still comfortably supply their display to Apple?
You made the assertion that Samsung displays is not the same as Samsung mobile. You do release that both are under Samsung Electronics, right? Samsung SDI does not currently make OLED displays or LCD displays. They used to make displays. SDI today focuses on 4 things: small LiOn batteries, automotive batteries, energy storage systems (ESS), and electronic materials.
Yes, because the iPhone is made by Apple Inc. You are comparing Apple phone division, which is only a division in Apple Inc, to wholly stand alone companies with separate organizations and stocks like Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI.
Your assertion is based on the false premise that SDI makes displays. They do not anymore. They did not provide displays to Apple or anyone. Samsung Electronics does. Samsung Electronics also includes semiconductor and mobile phones.
So *whaa* {insert problem that isn't related to Google about Google's OS here}.
You wrote about Android OS in general. Are you denying that these are legitimate problems affecting Android phones in general. Most consumers don't give a damn that Google puts out Android security updates that they don't see. They care that they can get the updates.
Vote with your wallet. My phone is 3 years old and is on security patch level October 2017, without rooting, just from OTA updates, and running Lollipop
No that wasn't your point. Your point was: "There is more of a requirement to run the latest shiny for iOS, whereas in Android the requirement is not there and the shiny is reserved for customers paying for updated devices." With an Android device you can't know how long if ever your phone gets updated. It even matters down to the model and carrier.
Your phone is 3 years old and still gets updates. Congrats. But you can't say that about every Android.
Which brings me back to the original point: There's fuck all reason to desire an upgrade to a new OS, unlike with Apple where doing so is critical for security reasons.
Which brings me to my point: security patches are useless if the consumer can't apply them.
You are speculating that since those phones are released merely weeks a part, then both are using same generation display, while the only fact that you have is that iPhone X is released weeks later than Note 8. However, we do know for a fact that a samsung display managed to score yet another best performance smartphone display on DisplayMate.
No I am pointing out that you are speculating they are in fact different generations. You made the assertion: "What the iPhone X has is just a natural progression of their constant improvement from one generation to the newer one." You can't assert that in fact the iPhone X has a newer generation display. It might have an older generation. It might be newer. All we know is that the release date was weeks apart. Not 6 months or a year part.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place? . ..
Because I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing another poster who said: "They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple." His assertion: only Samsung has the best display. No, Samsung has had good OLED displays. Apple has had some good LCD displays.
Maybe? so you're speculating again?
Maybe you're ignoring what DisplayMate said.
Again, you're banking on the assumption that since the phones are released only weeks apart then they are using the same generation display. Samsung Mobile did not make the display, SDI did, you can't speculate what SDI do or have, based on Samsung Mobile release schedule.
I never said that. I am saying specifically that you can't assert that they are different generations especially since they are weeks apart. If they were 6 months apart, they are probably different generations.
And you're still thinking that the Samsung that made Note 8 is the same Samsung that manufacture the display.
In the same way that Sony who makes computers is the same the Sony that makes phones. It's the same Sony who makes the PS4. If you wan't to nitpick that they aren't the same because they are different divisions of Samsung Electronics, then no company should have to answer for anything under their brand. So if you had a problem with an Apple iPhone you wouldn't immediately take it up with Apple? Or would you hunt down only the Apple phone division?
We don't know. We can't know. Unless we work in the right division at Samsung or Apple.
I agree there is a possibility that Apple did something, like I always said. But there are many other credible explanations.
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
No, like 99.9999999999999999% of the people here. What's your point? That the discussion is reserved for display manufacturers?
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
I meant anyone should be able to calibrate their Note 8 display for color accuracy just as good as the iPhone X if it's only a software setting AND the display panel is the same. Perhaps the display panel in the iPhone X is superior and will always give better results. Perhaps they are the same. Who knows?
A person might be able to maybe if they could get low level access to a phone. That wasn't the point. DisplayMate didn't test that a person could. What they did test is both devices based on factory settings.
I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration...
"Calibration isn't as important. . . you can't re-perform a calibration" Says who? Do you work with any displays or any instrumentation at all? You can always re-perform a calibration. If you couldn't, the device would be worthless. After one calibration, throw it away because it can't be re-calibrated. For most consumer monitors, calibrations are not as important because color accuracy isn't as important. If the goal is color accuracy (which it is in this case), calibration is very important. You don't pay $500+ for a professional monitor if the calibration wasn't important to the manufacturer. If you're paying $150 for a monitor, the calibration wasn't as important to you or the manufacturer. For high-end smartphones like the Note 8 and the iPhone X, color accuracy and thus calibration is important. If you're paying $150 for a smart phone, you can't expect it to have high color accuracy.
No as again, we don't know who is performing the calibration of the iPhone X display. Even Displaymate doesn't know that.
Are you ignoring the fact that in fact DisplayMate credited Apple for doing so? So according to you, DisplayMate doesn't know but did so anyway. By the way, it is DisplayMate's business to know. And it makes no sense that Apple didn't because it is fairly standard that a smart phone maker calibrates their displays. Huawei buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. Sony buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. And so on. It's part of a QA process: Did the part that I bought meet my specifications? It has to be calibrated then tested.
Perhaps it's Samsung and they have a firmware storing the calibration values in their display. Perhaps Samsung is giving the numbers to Apple so that they can be stored in the iPhone main flash memory.
So now you are throwing in rampant speculation while trying to avoid giving Apple credit for what's industry standard. Manufacturer A buys a part from Supplier B. They test it. Your assertion: Manufacturer A never tests the part they get from Supplier B. They just always accepts whatever Supplier B says.
I asked you what you meant by performance and you never answered.
Yes I did. I referred you again to the DisplayMate review as I go by their definition of "performance". Again, read the review. The word performance is only used 37 times on the page.
I could argue that resolution is a key metric of a display performance.
Again, read the review
A low resolution display doesn't perform as great as a high resolution one.
Also if you're really good at shorting you might put the institution you bet with in trouble. One of the issues that came up with traders that shorted the housing market was that they didn't get paid until longer after the housing market bubble had burst. The banks who wrote the shots were liable for billions that they didn't want to pay.
The release date is a fact. Whether it has anything to do with the difference in performance between Note 8 and iPhone X is speculation on your side.
All of which I never said.
This was what you wrote: "What the iPhone X has is just a natural progression of their constant improvement from one generation to the newer one." The iPhone X is only weeks newer than the Note 8. If it was six months or 1 year newer, you might have a point that it is a generation newer. But factually it is only weeks newer. I'm pretty sure that Samsung does not put out a new generation of displays every few weeks.
So you are speculating. Aside from "weeks later" you have nothing.
Please point out the speculation. The iPhone X is only weeks newer. DisplayMate rated it the display better. These are facts.
Unfair comparison of what? Look up and you'll find that you posted DisplayMate link to iPhone 7 LCD review to drum apple up, failing to notice that it actually failed to best a 6 month older S7. You brought this up. I'm just playing along.
You mean besides comparing two different display technologies like OLED and LCD in the same category? Besides that?
That a display on an iPhone can only score higher than a Samsung phone when it was made by Samsung
Why didn't the Samsung display score on par or better than the iPhone? They both use tech from Samsung. Maybe Apple had something to do with it.
The fact is, a Samsung display scores higher than its' previous iteration. Simple.
The point you missed was how is the new display the "next iteration". It was only weeks newer. Unless you think Samsung makes new iterations every few weeks.
You're not understanding the difference between updates and security patches. They have nothing to do with each other. Just because your Ancient Galaxy S5 didn't get Orea, or Nougat, or maybe you didn't chose to install Marshmallow doesn't mean that it isn't supported due to the difference between security level patching and the version of the OS.
Oh I understand the difference. So please tell me that how I get security updates on my Android phone? You can't because you don't know 1) the model/version and 2) the carrier. With Android you might get a phone that hasn't been updated in years and can't be updated/won't be updated even with security patches. Like I said: Android in general does. With Android phones, the details matter.
But I can just root the phone right? Maybe. Again depends on the model/version/firmware version/etc and carrier. Even then it's not a guarantee as it relies on 3rd party software that may or may not work. And after all that, rooting doesn't mean that magically my phone will always be patched. If anything rooting the phone makes the patching more of a nightmare. Now I'm completely responsible for the patching and have to keep up with patch releases and researching that every patch will work/been tested/has no issue with my phone. It also means that whatever custom patching I've done might be incompatible with official patches. It is, at times, maddening.
With Apple, you're either running the latest or you're out of support.
And how is that different than Android? It's exactly the same but with Android I have the option to root. Sorta. Maybe. For most people the "sorta . . . maybe" isn't worth it. As someone who has to administer Windows, OS X, and Linux, I have no desire to be a full time security admin at home.
Apple support their hardware with core OS releases longer, but security wise there's little separating the companies with Google providing security patching all the way back to the original release which separated security from feature updates.
Again, Google provides the patches. Those patches might never make it to my Android for a long list of reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
The claim by the accountant could be that such interactions were lies: For example the accountant never talked to the client the times and places the client describes so there's no possible way that he/she screamed at the client. As for verbally harassment and legal action, that also could be lies too. That depends on what the accountant is pursuing .
Also, you had better have explicitly stated that everything was just in your own opinion, or else regardless of your intent, it can still be taken as defamatory.
What you're failing to realize is that facts can be proven or dis-proven and the courts care about facts. And if your facts are dis-proven then that goes towards credibility. If you said: "I didn't like the accountant; he was sloppy." That's an opinion that every court would throw out in a case against you. In this case the reviewer makes the claim that the final bill was double the original quote. That can be proven or dis-proven. If it turns out that the original quote and the bill were not that much different, then the reviewer lied in his review.
Even then, however, depending in the context, that may not be enough, because if you say that they did "sloppy" work, for example, and they can show that they had done absolutely everything that they were reasonably supposed to have done, based on the information they had at the time, even if you were not satisfied with the final result, then such a remark can easily be considered to still be a deliberately made false statement, unless you can also prove that you had no way to not realize they had done everything they were supposed to have (which requires proving a negative, which can often be extremely difficult), or if you can prove that they knew, or if you can offer a very substantial proof that they at least *should* have known it.
No where does it say "sloppy" claim is what the accountant is making a case about. The accountant can make a case about the cost of the work as that relates to facts.
Telling what can look like a deliberate lie to someone else and then only later saying that it was all just in your opinion *MIGHT* save your bacon, but it is quite far from foolproof... and remember, quite often all that something has to do to be considered sufficiently defamatory to merit legal consequences is *LOOK* like it was a deliberate false statement, even if it really was just an opinion.
The poster isn't saying that opinions are always protected. What he's saying is that opinions are far more protected that facts. Stating facts that can be dis-proven can be the downfall of a case.
If you adhere simply to the facts as you would have had every reason to have known them, leaving absolutely all opinion out of it, and allow the reader to come only to their own opinion, you are always entirely covered.
That relies on the assumption that the reviewer was telling the truth about the facts. The problem is that if they were not and were dis-proven then the reviewer looks dishonest in the eyes of the court.
In this case again, the reviewer said he was charged double. If the accountant proves that was a lie (by presenting a signed quote), then the reviewer can be held for stating lies.
Too bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare. Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled. If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action. I chalked it up as a very expensive lesson, hope this spares someone else the same.
Now we're just left with he-said-vs-she-said for the quoted price. Good luck proving that the reviewer didn't believe the original quote.
No one has to prove the "belief" of the reviewer. The accountant merely has to show that the reviewer was presented with a quote. It would be better for accountant if the reviewer signed the quote therefore acknowledging that the reviewer agreed with the quote.
"Yes, I asked about X, and he said 'about $Y', but then he charged me $2Y dollars." then the tax preparer immediately loses his case,
In what scenario of "he said, she said" would one party immediately lose a case after making a claim? The reviewer can claim his side of the story and the accountant can claim his side. Both have an opportunity to present evidence. For example if the accountant has email or texts from the reviewer saying that they wanted to file certain forms (which would cost more) then the accountant has a case that the reviewer agreed to increase the cost by having more work done.
and he's going to get counter-sued for a lot more than $2Y (think: court costs + tort claim).
In what scenario would that happen? A person can sue and get counter sued but there are more limits to a counter sue. The tort claim you imagine does not happen in most cases.
The 1st Amendment also does not protect anyone from libel or slander.
After some digging to find the actual review, it seemed fairly tame to me
I guess it's tame by Internet standards and your standards but would you use an accountant that the reviewer described. The problem for the reviewer is that it doesn't just have an opinion but also also verifiable facts.
Bill was way more than their quote; return was so sloppy I had another firm redo it and my return more than doubled.
So here the reviewer doesn't say outright that the accountant was incompetent but he/she makes claims that can be verified.
1)What was the bill and what was the estimate? I've heard this complaint before with services in particular. A client doesn't like the service that he or she got which is understandable, but more importantly they also have a dispute on the cost. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding and sometimes it's the client who did not understand the estimate and terms of service. For example wedding photographers generally list every service and fee and the total bill can run into the thousands. Some people are outraged that after they spent thousands of dollars to find out they are being charged $150 for an assembled hard cover album when it was already in the estimate. So then people make up lies to get back at the photographer.
2) Did the reviewer actually use another accountant to re-do the work? Again I've heard this complaint before, and it sometimes it turns out not to be true. The reviewer unhappy with the cost could have made up a complete lie that the work had to be re-done to damage a reputation.
If you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action.
Here is another claim that can be verified too. This might be the crux of the complaint. No one really wants to work with someone who screams at them and harasses them. In the many claims of "harassment" I've seen it's the defendant repeatedly trying to collect their money. Many times it also is the source of the "legal action". The person wants to be paid and will threaten legal action if not paid which is within their rights.
The court ruled that accountant had made enough of case that the review was defamatory and not merely expressing opinion.
Um. No. The 1st Amendment does not protect all speech. It never has. Libel has always been a noted exception to 1st Amendment protections.
He's not wrong about the GPL. You only have to publish your changes if you distribute. If you use it personally and internally, you don't have to publish your source code. However many super computing environments are academic institutions who have no problems sharing their changes and modifications. But that doesn't mean all sites must. Some might fall under competing guidelines. For example, the top US computer is Titan at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is a national government laboratory so there might be a mandate to publicly share information but it also does military research so some of what it works is sensitive to national security concerns. The most likely use of their supercomputer is nuclear detonation simulations. So changes to Titan to make the computer faster in general could be published (network, latency, I/O, etc). Changes that made nuclear calculations faster might not be published.
The problem if you read the article is that China has tariffs on imported polysilicon so there is no "invisible hand" here. Worldwide polysilicon supply is not in danger. This is only a problem in China created by China.
The moon might have rare elements. Silicon is not a rare element as it is the most common element in the Earth's crust. The reason polysilicon is rare in China right now is that China imposed tariffs on imported polysilicon. The US and South Korea has plenty of polysilicon to sell to China; however, China made the tariff to import it from those countries high enough that it would not be profitable.
Indeed. It's not really a raw materials problem as an intermediate materials problem. What the industry lacks is domestic polysilicon. They could buy from the US and South Korea if their trade policies didn't make those sources so expensive.
That is only a reaction to your "Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple"
Please point out the logical flaw in that assertion unlike your assertion which had a major flaw in it.
You do realize there are time function working for something labeled as "the best"? When DisplayMate tested S6, it was the best they have ever tested, nothing was better better than S6 when DisplayMate tested it out.
I realize that there is a component of our existence called time. DisplayMate couldn't give iPhone X a better score than the S6 two years ago because of the linear nature of time in our existence. Again the major flaw with your Note 8 comparison is that DisplayMate reviewed the Note 8 weeks before the iPhone X not years before. You are again relying on the unproven premise that the displays must be different generations. A second major flaw in your thinking is that DisplayMate could not have rated the iPhone X lower than both displays. Of course the iPhone X could have been worse than a display two years ago (S6) or two weeks ago (Note 8). A newer generation does not necessarily imply better. But DisplayMate rated it higher.
But but but.. you don't know that " Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple", right? But you said it anyway,
Please show where the logical flaw is in that statement. I never said that I "know". I said "maybe" Apple did something whereas you've asserted that the displays are different generations.
Not logic, fact. And legally and financially true. There's a company named Samsung SDI [bloomberg.com], Samsung Electronics Co ltd [bloomberg.com], Samsung Display Co ltd [bloomberg.com], and Samsung Mobile Display Co Ltd [bloomberg.com]
This is what you said: "If we must follow your logic, how come Samsung Electronic is engaging ongoing Iegal battle with apple, and ,b>SDI can still comfortably supply their display to Apple?"
You said SDI supplies their display to Apple. That's not factually true. SDI is no longer in the display business so they cannot supply Apple with any displays. Samsung Display Co is a completely different entity than SDI.
It is still a separate business entity from Samsung Electronics.
Samsung Display Co is a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics.
And lookup up on "Electronic Materials" on Samsung SDI page. One of them is electronic material for OLED displays. It even has a picture of smartphone on it
If you read the page it says "In 2014, we have developed high-efficiency electrode paste, deposition materials which makes OLED high-efficient and long-lasting, next generation CR material for high-resolution. In 2015, we also strive to take the dominance in the next generation core material market as well as existing market by developing OLED materials which we have been working on, next generation polarizing film and high luminance CR, etc."
Just because it has a picture of an OLED does not mean SDI makes OLEDs anymore. They showed a picture of a smartphone because showing a picture of "deposition materials" probably isn't as meaningful to the average person. It's clear that they make materials used in OLEDs just like Corning makes the Gorilla glass used in smartphones does not mean Corning makes smartphones. And when Corning shows off a picture of the Gorilla glass, they are going to show a picture of a smartphone, a tablet, etc because that's a primary usage.
No, Samsung Electronics has never manufacture and sell OLED display. Samsung Display which was part of Samsung Electronics, made LCD panel. In 2012 Samsung Electronics spun of it's LCD division to a separate company and merge it with Samsung Mobile Display, which does manufacture OLEDs.
Define "separate": Samsung Electronics owns at a majority stake (84.8%) of Samsung Display Co with S
So the United States Department of Justice is responsible for Qualcomm's regulatory problems in South Korea, China, and Taiwan? Are you sure about that?
[sarcasm]Clearly there is no way that scientists came up this research with decades ago and that they debated it for decades before consensus. No this was all invented by China recently to cover up their involvement with the Kennedy assassination and the Lindberg kidnapping.[/sarcasm]
There are 3 possibilities here. 1. Apple performed the calibration 2. someone else performed the calibration and display mate is wrong 3. someone else performed the calibration for Apple but display mate still credit them as the integrator
No there are than 2 possibilities here that are important. DisplayMate is right or they are wrong. Since they are in the businesses of displays it makes it their business to know about such things. You can believe them or not. It appears that you decide not to believe them because of your deep denial.
I am not denying any of the above 3 is possible. You are denying 2 and 3.
I have never denied 2 out of 3. Please show me where I said it. I said it's fairly standard for Apple (and any manufacturer) to do their own calibration on a part they buy. It's part of QA. Here's where your thoughts are completely one-dimensional: Parts vendors do their calibrations, too. But nothing precludes the buyer from doing one too. Comparing both vendor and buyer calibrations might pinpoint any problems that arise in shipping. For this case, shipping may not affect the readings; but in general how a part gets jostled and abused during shipping might affect the part.
Yes, I do. Please read the words you just quoted again. It,s one thing to misread. But it's another to make a point out of it over and over again. You are pathetic
Oh I did get that wrong. But you are still claiming that calibration isn't that important right?
A professional monitor has many different characteristics.
No. The one factor that makes a monitor "professional" has always been color accuracy.
The first 4k monitors may have been professional ones.
Not factually true The first 4K monitor was consumer not professional probably because I'm guessing the color accuracy requirements for the professional would have been hard to do at the time.
So at that time, the only way to get that resolution was to get a professional monitor
So what? That wasn't your point. Your point was that someone would get a professional monitor for the resolution not the color accuracy. Your point wasn't at the early days of 4K, a person would get a professional monitor just for the resolution.
That's because the scale is a measuring tool. A display is not a measuring tool. Anyway if you are testing a scale, you won't be calibrating it. You'll make sure (test) that it was properly calibrated. The calibration of the scale should happen during production, before QA.
Bahahaha. You are testing the function of the display to make sure it passes a specification but you're not going to calibrate anything to make sure your results are solid? There will be multiple calibrations done. Some will be done on the instrumentation. Like I said above: you can test the display before you calibrate it but the "before" results are not as important as the "after". It has to meet specifications after calibration not before.
No. It was your assertion that they know because it's their business to know. I simply replied with the fact that it's not their business. I never claimed that they can't know because they rate displays.
Besides the part where you said: "I disagree It's their business to rate displays." Denial?
Yes I know that. You didn't seem to know however.
And yet you said the opposite: "Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating. " Denial?
Well you inferred it. As every display is different. Calibrating one out of two would be useless, an
That's your interpretation. Mine is that they credit Apple for the result, no matter if they do the calibration themselves or not.
The review says this: "But what makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration that Apple developed that transforms the OLED hardware into a superbly accurate, high performance, and gorgeous display!" It's not my interpretation. The review says it in plain English. Are you just in deep denial?
You didn't get what I wrote. Read my post again.
Your entire posts so far have been full of false dichotomies and red herrings. Face it, you're just in full denial mode.
I don't know, that quote isn't from me.
These are your exact words: "I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration..."
You asserted calibrations are "not that important". You asserted that you can't re-perform a calibration. Do you deny it?
Yes, both.
Your posts suggest otherwise. You've made numerous false statements about both.
Why not? I might need the resolution but not the accuracy.
Bahahahahaha. You do realize a professional monitor doesn't mean highest resolution monitor right? Professional monitors can be 1080p, 4k, or even 5k. The resolution isn't what puts them into the "professional monitor" category. The color accuracy specifically does.
I disagree. It's their business to rate displays.
False dichotomy: Your assertion that they can't know because they rate displays.
You are 100% wrong here. Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating. Also it's possible that they do some random screening but do not even perform full tests on every iPhone produced.
Bahahahaha. Dude, I hope you never work for QA in any capacity. Part of testing is calibration. Before I can check any specs, I have to make sure my readings are accurate. How do I do that? Calibration. Even if I'm doing something as simple as weighing a part, calibrating the scale is part of the testing. You really should brush up on your testing and QA procedures. If I'm testing a display, I'm going to calibrate it. I'm going to calibrate all instrumentation. I might do tests before and after calibration but the before has limited use to pass it. But I'm going to calibrate it.
It's just as rampant speculation as saying that Apple needs to calibrate every single display themselves. .
I never said that Apple must 100% calibrate every single display. Please show me above where I said that. You're just making things up. I said that Apple tests their parts like every manufacture. Testing would include calibration. This is basic manufacturing and QA.
We don't know. Perhaps it's already calibrated, perhaps it isn't. Unlike you, I don't rule out any possibility when I don't know
Please provide any evidence of what you say is true. You made this assertion. You can't can you? You're just speculating, aren't you?
Again, testing isn't the same as calibrating.
For someone who claims to know instrumentation you don't know that calibrating is often before testing.
So you disagree with the fact that a higher resolution display is better than a low resolution one, all other things being equal?
Only if you agree that Apple had a hand in making the display better.
That was exactly my point.
No it wasn't. Your point was never that the resolution made it more difficult to get better results. Your point has always been to deny Apple credit.
We don't know. Maybe they can do a lot, maybe they don't
The phones are weeks a part. There's no telling about the display.
Which was my point. You can't assert that they different generation of displays. Are you denying you made that assertion?
Where did that come from? How did you translate "They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple." to "Only Samsung has the best display"? Are you projecting your jealousy?
"For years Samsung had the best display on it own phone" precludes that all other manufacturers having the best displays. Including Apple. Including LG.
No, the S6, Note 5, S7, Note 7, S8, and Note 8 received "The Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested", the same accolade given to iPhone X. The iphone 7 merely received the best mobile LCD.
Again are you ignoring the part that the best OLED display was given to the iPhone X? Did you read the review on the Note 8 vs the iPhone X. The Note 8 got "Very Good" in a lot of marks whereas the iPhone X got "Excellent". I would say that the iPhone X beat out the Note 8.
You are when you assume that since the phone are only weeks apart then the difference in performance are the result of apple implementation.
No I'm specifically countering your assertion that 1) the iPhone X has a newer generation of display. You don't know that. 2) That having a newer generation display automatically translates into better performance. There have been many cases where something newer performs worse. For example, the Pentium 4 was not an upgrade to the Pentium III, etc.
Also I refer you to DisplayMate's review where they give the credit to Apple. It's in the review.
...They are actually different companies
Again by that logic: Apple mobile and Apple, Inc are different companies. Every single division within a company is a different company according to you. Legally and financially that's not true.
Then no company should have to answer under their brand? what does this have anything to do with the topic? If we must follow your logic, how come Samsung Electronic is engaging ongoing Iegal battle with apple, and SDI can still comfortably supply their display to Apple?
You made the assertion that Samsung displays is not the same as Samsung mobile. You do release that both are under Samsung Electronics, right? Samsung SDI does not currently make OLED displays or LCD displays. They used to make displays. SDI today focuses on 4 things: small LiOn batteries, automotive batteries, energy storage systems (ESS), and electronic materials.
Yes, because the iPhone is made by Apple Inc. You are comparing Apple phone division, which is only a division in Apple Inc, to wholly stand alone companies with separate organizations and stocks like Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI.
Your assertion is based on the false premise that SDI makes displays. They do not anymore. They did not provide displays to Apple or anyone. Samsung Electronics does. Samsung Electronics also includes semiconductor and mobile phones.
So *whaa* {insert problem that isn't related to Google about Google's OS here}.
You wrote about Android OS in general. Are you denying that these are legitimate problems affecting Android phones in general. Most consumers don't give a damn that Google puts out Android security updates that they don't see. They care that they can get the updates.
Vote with your wallet. My phone is 3 years old and is on security patch level October 2017, without rooting, just from OTA updates, and running Lollipop
No that wasn't your point. Your point was: "There is more of a requirement to run the latest shiny for iOS, whereas in Android the requirement is not there and the shiny is reserved for customers paying for updated devices." With an Android device you can't know how long if ever your phone gets updated. It even matters down to the model and carrier.
Your phone is 3 years old and still gets updates. Congrats. But you can't say that about every Android.
Which brings me back to the original point: There's fuck all reason to desire an upgrade to a new OS, unlike with Apple where doing so is critical for security reasons.
Which brings me to my point: security patches are useless if the consumer can't apply them.
You are speculating that since those phones are released merely weeks a part, then both are using same generation display, while the only fact that you have is that iPhone X is released weeks later than Note 8. However, we do know for a fact that a samsung display managed to score yet another best performance smartphone display on DisplayMate.
No I am pointing out that you are speculating they are in fact different generations. You made the assertion: "What the iPhone X has is just a natural progression of their constant improvement from one generation to the newer one." You can't assert that in fact the iPhone X has a newer generation display. It might have an older generation. It might be newer. All we know is that the release date was weeks apart. Not 6 months or a year part.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place? . . .
Because I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing another poster who said: "They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple." His assertion: only Samsung has the best display. No, Samsung has had good OLED displays. Apple has had some good LCD displays.
Maybe? so you're speculating again?
Maybe you're ignoring what DisplayMate said.
Again, you're banking on the assumption that since the phones are released only weeks apart then they are using the same generation display. Samsung Mobile did not make the display, SDI did, you can't speculate what SDI do or have, based on Samsung Mobile release schedule.
I never said that. I am saying specifically that you can't assert that they are different generations especially since they are weeks apart. If they were 6 months apart, they are probably different generations.
And you're still thinking that the Samsung that made Note 8 is the same Samsung that manufacture the display.
In the same way that Sony who makes computers is the same the Sony that makes phones. It's the same Sony who makes the PS4. If you wan't to nitpick that they aren't the same because they are different divisions of Samsung Electronics, then no company should have to answer for anything under their brand. So if you had a problem with an Apple iPhone you wouldn't immediately take it up with Apple? Or would you hunt down only the Apple phone division?
We don't know. We can't know. Unless we work in the right division at Samsung or Apple. I agree there is a possibility that Apple did something, like I always said. But there are many other credible explanations.
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
No, like 99.9999999999999999% of the people here. What's your point? That the discussion is reserved for display manufacturers?
And again, DisplayMate seems to think Apple had a hand. And DisplayMate works in the industry.
I meant anyone should be able to calibrate their Note 8 display for color accuracy just as good as the iPhone X if it's only a software setting AND the display panel is the same. Perhaps the display panel in the iPhone X is superior and will always give better results. Perhaps they are the same. Who knows?
A person might be able to maybe if they could get low level access to a phone. That wasn't the point. DisplayMate didn't test that a person could. What they did test is both devices based on factory settings.
I never said it's not important. Just that if they can be changed by software, they are not as important as you think. Since you can re-perform a calibration...
"Calibration isn't as important. . . you can't re-perform a calibration" Says who? Do you work with any displays or any instrumentation at all? You can always re-perform a calibration. If you couldn't, the device would be worthless. After one calibration, throw it away because it can't be re-calibrated. For most consumer monitors, calibrations are not as important because color accuracy isn't as important. If the goal is color accuracy (which it is in this case), calibration is very important. You don't pay $500+ for a professional monitor if the calibration wasn't important to the manufacturer. If you're paying $150 for a monitor, the calibration wasn't as important to you or the manufacturer. For high-end smartphones like the Note 8 and the iPhone X, color accuracy and thus calibration is important. If you're paying $150 for a smart phone, you can't expect it to have high color accuracy.
No as again, we don't know who is performing the calibration of the iPhone X display. Even Displaymate doesn't know that.
Are you ignoring the fact that in fact DisplayMate credited Apple for doing so? So according to you, DisplayMate doesn't know but did so anyway. By the way, it is DisplayMate's business to know. And it makes no sense that Apple didn't because it is fairly standard that a smart phone maker calibrates their displays. Huawei buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. Sony buying a display from Samsung will calibrate it. And so on. It's part of a QA process: Did the part that I bought meet my specifications? It has to be calibrated then tested.
Perhaps it's Samsung and they have a firmware storing the calibration values in their display. Perhaps Samsung is giving the numbers to Apple so that they can be stored in the iPhone main flash memory.
So now you are throwing in rampant speculation while trying to avoid giving Apple credit for what's industry standard. Manufacturer A buys a part from Supplier B. They test it. Your assertion: Manufacturer A never tests the part they get from Supplier B. They just always accepts whatever Supplier B says.
I asked you what you meant by performance and you never answered.
Yes I did. I referred you again to the DisplayMate review as I go by their definition of "performance". Again, read the review. The word performance is only used 37 times on the page.
I could argue that resolution is a key metric of a display performance.
Again, read the review
A low resolution display doesn't perform as great as a high resolution one.
Again, read the revi
Also if you're really good at shorting you might put the institution you bet with in trouble. One of the issues that came up with traders that shorted the housing market was that they didn't get paid until longer after the housing market bubble had burst. The banks who wrote the shots were liable for billions that they didn't want to pay.
The release date is a fact. Whether it has anything to do with the difference in performance between Note 8 and iPhone X is speculation on your side.
All of which I never said.
This was what you wrote: "What the iPhone X has is just a natural progression of their constant improvement from one generation to the newer one." The iPhone X is only weeks newer than the Note 8. If it was six months or 1 year newer, you might have a point that it is a generation newer. But factually it is only weeks newer. I'm pretty sure that Samsung does not put out a new generation of displays every few weeks.
So you are speculating. Aside from "weeks later" you have nothing.
Please point out the speculation. The iPhone X is only weeks newer. DisplayMate rated it the display better. These are facts.
Unfair comparison of what? Look up and you'll find that you posted DisplayMate link to iPhone 7 LCD review to drum apple up, failing to notice that it actually failed to best a 6 month older S7. You brought this up. I'm just playing along.
You mean besides comparing two different display technologies like OLED and LCD in the same category? Besides that?
That a display on an iPhone can only score higher than a Samsung phone when it was made by Samsung
Why didn't the Samsung display score on par or better than the iPhone? They both use tech from Samsung. Maybe Apple had something to do with it.
The fact is, a Samsung display scores higher than its' previous iteration. Simple.
The point you missed was how is the new display the "next iteration". It was only weeks newer. Unless you think Samsung makes new iterations every few weeks.
You're not understanding the difference between updates and security patches. They have nothing to do with each other. Just because your Ancient Galaxy S5 didn't get Orea, or Nougat, or maybe you didn't chose to install Marshmallow doesn't mean that it isn't supported due to the difference between security level patching and the version of the OS.
Oh I understand the difference. So please tell me that how I get security updates on my Android phone? You can't because you don't know 1) the model/version and 2) the carrier. With Android you might get a phone that hasn't been updated in years and can't be updated/won't be updated even with security patches. Like I said: Android in general does. With Android phones, the details matter.
But I can just root the phone right? Maybe. Again depends on the model/version/firmware version/etc and carrier. Even then it's not a guarantee as it relies on 3rd party software that may or may not work. And after all that, rooting doesn't mean that magically my phone will always be patched. If anything rooting the phone makes the patching more of a nightmare. Now I'm completely responsible for the patching and have to keep up with patch releases and researching that every patch will work/been tested/has no issue with my phone. It also means that whatever custom patching I've done might be incompatible with official patches. It is, at times, maddening.
With Apple, you're either running the latest or you're out of support.
And how is that different than Android? It's exactly the same but with Android I have the option to root. Sorta. Maybe. For most people the "sorta . . . maybe" isn't worth it. As someone who has to administer Windows, OS X, and Linux, I have no desire to be a full time security admin at home.
Apple support their hardware with core OS releases longer, but security wise there's little separating the companies with Google providing security patching all the way back to the original release which separated security from feature updates.
Again, Google provides the patches. Those patches might never make it to my Android for a long list of reasons.
Do you have any basis of your claim? I have yet to see a link.
So I'm supposed to argue something that isn't my point?