Hacker News Reader

Comment by dewey | Hacker News Reader

> Apple is not a dive computer company. They sell computers. Other dive computer brands also sell computers, but these are not general purpose.

Apple is not a [phone|watch|camera] company. They sell computers.

That's what people said at every single new product that's not in their classic computer product line. Turns out you can get pretty good at products outside your initial niche, and for most people it will be more than good enough.

If you ask most regular people to classify Apple they would probably say "phone company", and by revenue share they would be correct. There's a reason they renamed themselves from "Apple Computers Inc." to just Apple.

View on HN

> Turns out you can get pretty good at products outside your initial niche, and for most people it will be more than good enough.

dive computers are used in an activity that can kill you. A "you're holding it wrong" flaw could result in death rather than missed calls.

The outcome would mean you would want the best designers in the world working on the problem. The use error in both conditions of answering a phone and diving are the same: the human factor. Only the importance of the outcome of the human-machine interaction error differs.

What brand do we trust the most to do the design job right regardless of context? Well, the brand a lot of people trust has the hardware and ecosystem. Do we trust the app developer, however?

> What brand do we trust the most to do the design job right regardless of context?

It's not apple designers making the app. But apple design of form over function is certainly a poor fit for a device you need to rely on.

In any case, my gf's iphone's map app is completely unusable from me. Every time it's faster if I just take my own phone and open OSMand.

People working at apple aren't more intelligent or skilled than the general population really.

> A "you're holding it wrong" flaw could result in death rather than missed calls

How many people were affected by this, and is this comparable to the failure rate of the dive computer you implicitly trust?

Quick Googling:

--- start quote ---

From our internal information and industry connections, the failure rates we have seen over the expected service lifetime of a computer vary from 0.5% to 50%, based on the brand and model. And don't think that any particular brand makes you safe. For example, while Suunto is generally a reliable brand, the early D3 was a disaster in terms of failure rates. The Stinger on the other hand was very reliable.

--- end quote ---

50% failure rate. For an activity that can kill you. Imagine if these companies were under the same scrutiny as Apple.

Or for example [2]

--- start quote ---

I bought the computer in February 2018

March 2019, the straps + mount started rotting away

April 2019 - software error E6

Enter the Bluetooth connection issues...

November 2021 - E37 error!

July 2022 - button loose (?!), computer floods, game over...

--- end quote ---

Or a settlement [3] "Suunto settles scary scuba screwup for $50m: 'Faulty' dive computer hardware and software put explorers in peril"

[1] https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/dive-computers-fail...

[2] https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/experience-report-s...

[3] https://www.theregister.com/2018/12/19/suunto_scuba_screwup/

> How many people were affected by this, and is this comparable to the failure rate of the dive computer you implicitly trust?

No idea. All the owners of that model of iphone. I have no clue how many units were sold. How is that important?

Failure rate talk is a 14yrs old post from a manufacturer that used to make dive computers but has stopped. Let's ignore that until a better source is given.

2nd link: some contaminant is destroying the computer… I'm sure apple™plastic™ is no more resistant than regular plastic.

The bluetooth is not a life threatening issue. The software issues are indeed worrying.

In any event, those are companies that have sold millions of units. Diving with the apple watch is so costly (hardware + subscription) that few rich hobbyists will do that, and no professional diver.

I'm sure failures and issues will come out, but not in the same numbers, because the heavy users can buy 2 dive computers to have redundancy and still spend less than how much it costs doing it with apple.

> No idea. All the owners of that model of iphone. I have no clue how many units were sold. How is that important?

So, you have no idea how many were affected, but "all users". How is that important? If it was 1% of 1% of users affected, then it's probably better than most diving equipment. If it's 99%, then it's bad.

> Let's ignore that until a better source is given.

And yet, when we talk about Apple it's "I don't know, all of them". Hm...

> In any event, those are companies that have sold millions of units.

So has Apple. Your point?

> that few rich hobbyists will do that, and no professional diver.

How is that relevant to your implicit trust in diving computers and explicit mistrust in Apple because of something that happened 12 years ago to an unknown percentage of users for a phone that in first three days sold more than probably all dive computers are being sold in a year.

> I'm sure failures and issues will come out, but not in the same numbers,

I wonder if you realise that individual models from various dive computer makers are probably selling in the same numbers as what's expected from Apple Watch Ultra.

And yet, you trust them implicitly.

> So, you have no idea how many were affected, but "all users". How is that important? If it was 1% of 1% of users affected, then it's probably better than most diving equipment. If it's 99%, then it's bad.

I like how you like to make up random numbers with no data to sound very scientific :)

> And yet, when we talk about Apple it's "I don't know, all of them". Hm...

That's because I don't provide random forum posts of something happening to 1 person as "this happens to every user".

> So has Apple. Your point?

Apple has sold millions of scuba diving apple watches to active scuba divers??? Do you have a source on this unbelievable fact you just made up?

> How is that relevant

The thing is that I base my opinions on data, and at the moment there is no existing data.

You on the other hand just type numbers to justify your opinions, and call that "data".

So it is relevant because apple watch will never see intensive scuba diving use, and will thus experience fewer total failures, because of not being used as much.

Like, a car driving constantly breaks way more often than a car that is just being displayed. Doesn't necessarily mean that the display car is better because it doesn't fail.

> I wonder if you realise that individual models from various dive computer makers are probably selling in the same numbers as what's expected from Apple Watch Ultra.

I wonder if you realise instead of buying 1 apple watch you can buy 2 diving computers, have excellent redundancy and save 500$.

> I like how you like to make up random numbers with no data to sound very scientific :)

Says the person whose answer is "I don't know".

I told you why knowing the percentage of people affected is important. You just dismiss it.

> Apple has sold millions of scuba diving apple watches to active scuba divers???

No. Apple has sold millions of devices. Which is important when discussing failure rates.

> The thing is that I base my opinions on data, and at the moment there is no existing data.

No. You base your opinion on "I don't know, all of them, only rich people will use Ultra so issues will not in the same numbers". That's no data. That's pure speculation.

You don't even have failure stats for dive computers, do you? Even given that each particular model of a dive computer is used by potentially as many people as those "only rich people who will use watch ultra".

But sure, "dive computers are used in an activity that can kill you", and the internet is littered with "What happens if your dive computer fails" articles. Dive computer manufacturers explicitly call this put in their manuals [1] And there are literally no standards for verification of dive computers, manufacturers routinely lie about their certifications or skip them [2]

And yet. "I wouldn't trust Apple unlike these manufacturers that have sold millions of devices because data!"

[1] E.g. Suunto: https://ns.suunto.com/Manuals/D6i/Userguides/Suunto_D6i_User... page 4

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295967776_Dive_comp...

> Says the person whose answer is "I don't know".

Better than the person who pretends to know :)

> I told you why knowing the percentage of people affected is important.

It's important… But I have no way of obtaining this information.

> No. Apple has sold millions of devices. Which is important when discussing failure rates.

We are talking about scuba diving specifically. I'm sure apple watches tell the time absolutely fine. What we are discussing here is their reliability under water while tracking the dives.

Can you stop pretending being daft for a minute and admit there are comparatively very very few units that are used for this purpose?

> You base your opinion on "I don't know, all of them, only rich people will use Ultra so issues will not in the same numbers". That's no data. That's pure speculation.

I base my opinion on being a diver and having held in my hands dive computers and watches.

And an apple watch isn't so good in a dive. It's tiny, you won't even see the numbers if your mask is a bit foggy or the water isn't so clear.

It's also harder to use.

Do you know how a dive computer works? You put it on and jump in the water. When it touches water it turns on. You don't need to open the correct app and whatnot.

> And yet. "I wouldn't trust Apple unlike these manufacturers that have sold millions of devices because data!"

I wouldn't trust apple because my macbook fell apart, and so I understand that a flimsy watch won't be as sturdy as a sturdy dive computer.

Anyway, please come back to me after trying scuba diving at least once.

> I'm sure apple™plastic™ is no more resistant than regular plastic.

I would not know about the specific area of dive computers, but in general, Apple can and does conduct materials research and procurement on an entirely different scale from many other companies, so they often ARE capable of using superior materials.

Plastic and salt water don't really agree with each other.

In fact salt water doesn't agree with most things.

I don't think they sell computers either- they sell end-user computing appliances.

It's more of a gadget fashion/lifestyle brand now. Wearables are a good fit for their target audience. Desktops, servers, or anything that's not on public display, not so much.

You don't want a gadget or anything fashionable when you go scuba diving.

You want an instrument, which can be ugly and boring but needs to be absolutely reliable.

Anything else can literally kill you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com