News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google Pixel Fold. Parent comment

Re:Google Pixel Fold by Jeff_Brown on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @07:07PM (#35894731)
A few hundred?! That's like a week of use. Does that happen a lot? Do we have a way of estimating the average number of folds a user can expect before failure?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by vanshg on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @07:25PM (#35894970)
Samsung tested their original Galaxy Fold to 200,000 folds [0]. At a generous 100 folds per day, that's about 5.5 years.

[0] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14136/samsung-galaxy-fold-can...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by brookst on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @07:57PM (#35895305)
The 200,000 figure isn't super meaningful unless they report average folds to failure and standard deviation.

From that article, it could be that they test to 200,000 folds because at that point 99.6% have failed, and the 50% failure rate might be at 100,000. Or 20,000. Or 190,000.

I don't think they're saying that 100% of phones will last to 200,000 folds. That would be a bold claim indeed.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by dr_kiszonka on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @08:11PM (#35895449)
My interpretation of this article and the original press release is that the screens are supposed to last at least 200k folds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by brookst on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @08:22PM (#35895541)
If it's 0% failure at 200k folds, that means the 200k is about six standard deviations away from the mean, so I think (statistics gurus please correct) that says the average device will last for 1.7m folds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by DrBenCarson on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @09:18PM (#35896032)
That can’t be accurate just anecdotally. More likely they call it or or two sds out and chalk up the remaining 10 or so percent as RMAs.

You’re also assuming a normal distribution. This very well might not be a normal distribution

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by brookst on Thursday May 11, 2023 @12:28PM (#35904517)
Product lifetime is generally modeled using the Weibull distribution[1]. Depending on the parameters, a normal distribution is a reasonable approximation. Without data on the parameters, and just discussing whether "tested to 200,000 folds" means that every device will survive 200k folds, I think it's fair to use a normal distribution.

Agreed that they probably expect some percentage of RMAs. In fact, I'd argue that "tested to 200k folds" means that 200k gets them enough failures to model the lifetime distribution, so the average lifetime is probably considerably less than 200k.

1. https://www.weibull.com/basics/lifedata.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by pfannkuchen on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @10:37PM (#35896636)
Is it valid to assume a normal distribution here?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by jsheard on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @08:22PM (#35895539)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm_BEpXojrY

This guy independently tested a Flip 3, having people manually open and close the phone rather than using a machine, and it lasted 418,500 cycles before the hinge broke.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by sschueller on Thursday May 11, 2023 @07:16AM (#35900587)
So double of what Samsung promises? That doesn't sound very bad at all.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Pixel Fold by DiabloD3 on Thursday May 11, 2023 @06:30AM (#35900235)
That's the same Fold that everyone had to RMA repeatedly due to display failures. The story visited the HN front page at least once, and then Samsung did absolutely nothing to fix it.

I'm sorry, but I don't trust anyone claiming they've solved it until they've proven after 2 or 3 gens that there are no elevated failure rates.

Maybe this Google phablet will be the first that solved it, but I can't press X any harder for doubt.

[ Parent | on HN ]