Related
Yes, I'm quite aware this is off-topic... even for off-topic xD, but in all glasses forums I've found online, there's just no activity going on -.-
I'm nearly 17, and I wear fairly high-prescription glasses. I hate the lenses. It is becoming nearly painful to look at things now!
Things are clear and sharp. No complaints there, I'm complaining about the type of lens! I'm forced to use the horrible polycarbonate lenses because I'm under 18? I want CR-39 (plastic) lenses because the visual quality is MUCH better. On poly lenses, on the edges, there's significant color distortion.
I requested plastic lenses and the lady was asking me why as if it was the most far-fetched thing she had ever heard, and I explained fairly clearly why I want them instead. Then she was all "Ok, but plastic lenses are gonna be about twice as thick" I stopped her there and said "Honestly, I could care less about that. I take pictures and view 2 fairly large computer screens for a good portion of my day, every day. I have a wide view area, and I'd appreciate no color distortion for the minute 'con' of being thicker. I really don't think anyone else will care either."
she had this look on her face like I had just explained to an iPhone fanatic how the Galaxy Nexus pwns it. And she finally says "Well... umm... our policy is that anyone under 18 HAS to have polycarbonate lenses because they're shatterproof."
It was so difficult to say "Oh... Thanks anyway...." but I did without even sounding rude -.-
she seriously wasted my time to hear me explain, only to tell me I have no choice? and what kind of bs reason is they're shatterproof? Who cares? Plastic isn't going to ruin my eyes when they break from an impact unless it's an impact that would cause it to break in a similar matter to glass. I don't play sports, so polycarbonate lenses makes no sense.
On top of it all, plastic lenses are MUCH cheaper. Better visual quality and cheaper.
What do I do? I've had these glasses for about a month now and had the lenses changed today because my prescription was off. what are my options? I can't do contacts because they're expensive and I have astigmatism. There must be something I can do.
If you're in the USA you could try Costco for contacts. They're loads cheaper there. I only buy 1 box of each prescription at a time, then use the lenses until they wear out. I take them out each night and clean them with a solution called Clear Care. If you want to go that route I recommend the AirOptix lenses. In the long run, it's been cheaper than glasses.
Sent from my NookColor using XDA
j8048188 said:
If you're in the USA you could try Costco for contacts. They're loads cheaper there. I only buy 1 box of each prescription at a time, then use the lenses until they wear out. I take them out each night and clean them with a solution called Clear Care. If you want to go that route I recommend the AirOptix lenses. In the long run, it's been cheaper than glasses.
Sent from my NookColor using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 on hating poly lenses. With mine, I get some color distortion, but what bugs me the most is they're blurry around the edges...I always have to look right at something for it to look clear.
Only good thing? They're practically indestructable.
Sent from my coffee pot.
TheSkinnyDrummer said:
+1 on hating poly lenses. With mine, I get some color distortion, but what bugs me the most is they're blurry around the edges...I always have to look right at something for it to look clear.
Only good thing? They're practically indestructable.
Sent from my coffee pot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually would get contacts, but I like the looks glasses give me and hate the extra effort required to use contacts. And I have astigmatism. I think the eyecare places only push poly lenses to minors because they costs 2x the price and have "incentive" from the companies to push them. Sickens me. :/
In the US, the glasses have to be shatterproof for legal reasons (If they break and you bust an eye, you could potentially sue the company who sold them to you). However, it might be possible if your parents accompany you and agree to sign a waiver stating that they accept full responsibility blahblahblah ....
-----------
"You can overclock as much as you want, your phone will always seem too slow."
Dr. Hax said:
Yes, I'm quite aware this is off-topic... even for off-topic xD, but in all glasses forums I've found online, there's just no activity going on -.-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do they even have forums for eye glasses? Seriously!
Contact https://www.glassesuk.co.uk and see if they'll ship outside Europe or find someone to forward them on to you. Plastic lenses.
I feel your pain OP. All my life my lens prescription has been horrendous. I will never be able to get Rimless glasses, contact and custom lenses are almost $300 for me. Thankfully I have good insurance.
Sent from my MB870 using Tapatalk 2
omnomnomkimiiee said:
In the US, the glasses have to be shatterproof for legal reasons (If they break and you bust an eye, you could potentially sue the company who sold them to you). However, it might be possible if your parents accompany you and agree to sign a waiver stating that they accept full responsibility blahblahblah ....
-----------
"You can overclock as much as you want, your phone will always seem too slow."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Try zennioptical.com. Glasses starting @ $7.
Edit: they are made in China. That's why they are so cheap.
Sent from my NookColor using XDA
Dr. Hax said:
Yes, I'm quite aware this is off-topic... even for off-topic xD, but in all glasses forums I've found online, there's just no activity going on -.-
I'm nearly 17, and I wear fairly high-prescription glasses. I hate the lenses. It is becoming nearly painful to look at things now!
Things are clear and sharp. No complaints there, I'm complaining about the type of lens! I'm forced to use the horrible polycarbonate lenses because I'm under 18? I want CR-39 (plastic) lenses because the visual quality is MUCH better. On poly lenses, on the edges, there's significant color distortion.
I requested plastic lenses and the lady was asking me why as if it was the most far-fetched thing she had ever heard, and I explained fairly clearly why I want them instead. Then she was all "Ok, but plastic lenses are gonna be about twice as thick" I stopped her there and said "Honestly, I could care less about that. I take pictures and view 2 fairly large computer screens for a good portion of my day, every day. I have a wide view area, and I'd appreciate no color distortion for the minute 'con' of being thicker. I really don't think anyone else will care either."
she had this look on her face like I had just explained to an iPhone fanatic how the Galaxy Nexus pwns it. And she finally says "Well... umm... our policy is that anyone under 18 HAS to have polycarbonate lenses because they're shatterproof."
It was so difficult to say "Oh... Thanks anyway...." but I did without even sounding rude -.-
she seriously wasted my time to hear me explain, only to tell me I have no choice? and what kind of bs reason is they're shatterproof? Who cares? Plastic isn't going to ruin my eyes when they break from an impact unless it's an impact that would cause it to break in a similar matter to glass. I don't play sports, so polycarbonate lenses makes no sense.
On top of it all, plastic lenses are MUCH cheaper. Better visual quality and cheaper.
What do I do? I've had these glasses for about a month now and had the lenses changed today because my prescription was off. what are my options? I can't do contacts because they're expensive and I have astigmatism. There must be something I can do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They make contacts for astigmatism. I should know I wear them.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using xda premium
j8048188 said:
Try zennioptical.com. Glasses starting @ $7.
Edit: they are made in China. That's why they are so cheap.
Sent from my NookColor using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for this I need a new pair and these are cheap. Awesomeness
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA
Have your eyes lasered, I did.
Now when I get angry I fire laser beams out my eyes.
The laser they used on me was a Japanese slit eye laser.
Only one of the above statements isn't true.
xaccers said:
Have your eyes lasered, I did.
Now when I get angry I fire laser beams out my eyes.
The laser they used on me was a Japanese slit eye laser.
Only one of the above statements isn't true.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm one of those goofs who get's kinda mid-priced frames because I like the style glasses give me
I'm gonna attempt to find out if I can get a waiver or something stupid like that. I have asperger's syndrome and my mom thinks requiring cr-39 lenses might be a sensory thing..
Couldn't they treat me as special needs in this case or we could sue for not accommodating for my needs? Poly lenses give me headaches.
Hi, how high/strong is your Rx?
Instead of poly, try trivex or a high index plastic 1.60+.
Trivex is a mid index material, like poly. They both are thinner than CR-39. The big difference is that trivex is optically clear & has a high tinsel strength-which is on the opposite end of the spectrum of polycarbonate. At our shop, we highly recommend trivex to CR-39 and poly. Poly has the worse optical clarity ever-we try not to sell it at our shop.
High index is the thinnest you can go-recommended for high Rx.
Getting an anti-reflective coating should definitely help in terms of optical clarity. It cuts down on glare, reflections, and is also scratch resistant. This should have a warranty as well.
You might want to get the aspherical lens as it makes it thinner & not bulge out with a higher Rx.
These will cost more than poly obviously, but well worth it for what you are needing.
Oh one more thing, there's something called digital lens. What it is, is that a computer software is used to make the lens have better optical clarity from edge to edge- better than traditional lens. This might be something to look into as well.
Keep in mind that if you use your glasses for distant vision (-X.xx), the edges will always be thick with a high Rx.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA
Dr. Hax said:
I'm one of those goofs who get's kinda mid-priced frames because I like the style glasses give me
I'm gonna attempt to find out if I can get a waiver or something stupid like that. I have asperger's syndrome and my mom thinks requiring cr-39 lenses might be a sensory thing..
Couldn't they treat me as special needs in this case or we could sue for not accommodating for my needs? Poly lenses give me headaches.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Come to the UK and get glasses, afaik we don't have any strange restrictions on lenses.
You might even be able to get away with free lenses (just pretend to be English cor blimey guvnor me wants some specs)
han-shinbi said:
Hi, how high/strong is your Rx?
Instead of poly, try trivex or a high index plastic 1.60+.
Trivex is a mid index material, like poly. They both are thinner than CR-39. The big difference is that trivex is optically clear & has a high tinsel strength-which is on the opposite end of the spectrum of polycarbonate. At our shop, we highly recommend trivex to CR-39 and poly. Poly has the worse optical clarity ever-we try not to sell it at our shop.
High index is the thinnest you can go-recommended for high Rx.
Getting an anti-reflective coating should definitely help in terms of optical clarity. It cuts down on glare, reflections, and is also scratch resistant. This should have a warranty as well.
You might want to get the aspherical lens as it makes it thinner & not bulge out with a higher Rx.
These will cost more than poly obviously, but well worth it for what you are needing.
Oh one more thing, there's something called digital lens. What it is, is that a computer software is used to make the lens have better optical clarity from edge to edge- better than traditional lens. This might be something to look into as well.
Keep in mind that if you use your glasses for distant vision (-X.xx), the edges will always be thick with a high Rx.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going in for yet another eyecheck tomorrow. What are some tips to make sure they test me right this time? I know this seems picky, but I don't want things in the distance to be the least bit blurry, it bothers me. How do I tell the optometrist "Can you just keep increasing strength until I decide the bottom row is crystal clear?" without sounding like a ****? What are the chances that they carry Trivex because I've been considering that, since my rx is kinda high (anything past half a foot is out of focus) and I fear that even if I did get CR-39, I don't mind lenses being thick (especially for optically superior lenses!), but I don't need glasses to magnify my eyes from the thickness lol.
What we'll do is I'll have my granny explain and explain myelf as well that I have Asperger's, and imperfections in vision do give me genuine headaches, and because of this, I cannot deal with polycarbonate - it makes my retinas feel like images are burned in from the color fringing... for lack of better explanation.
I'll go with Trivex if they offer it, but what if they don't? Then what should I do? These are my only glasses and they give me headaches. Ask to speak to their manager to agree on a waiver for CR39?
Than you.
Dr. Hax said:
I'm going in for yet another eyecheck tomorrow. What are some tips to make sure they test me right this time? I know this seems picky, but I don't want things in the distance to be the least bit blurry, it bothers me. How do I tell the optometrist "Can you just keep increasing strength until I decide the bottom row is crystal clear?" without sounding like a ****? What are the chances that they carry Trivex because I've been considering that, since my rx is kinda high (anything past half a foot is out of focus) and I fear that even if I did get CR-39, I don't mind lenses being thick (especially for optically superior lenses!), but I don't need glasses to magnify my eyes from the thickness lol.
What we'll do is I'll have my granny explain and explain myelf as well that I have Asperger's, and imperfections in vision do give me genuine headaches, and because of this, I cannot deal with polycarbonate - it makes my retinas feel like images are burned in from the color fringing... for lack of better explanation.
I'll go with Trivex if they offer it, but what if they don't? Then what should I do? These are my only glasses and they give me headaches. Ask to speak to their manager to agree on a waiver for CR39?
Than you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im -5.00 in the left eye and -5.25 in the right eye (blind) but with my contacts in im 20/15 and i never have to tell my eye dr anything they always get it perfect. you may wanta try a new place. i dont wear glasses bc even when they give me the thinnest ones they are still coke bottles i get six pair of contacts and the exam for $100 only have to get the exam once a year, after that its only $50 for the six pair. oh yea and they always give me a pair so i dont have to open my new ones.
You could use the high index plastic-they are already aspheric I believe since your Rx is high. Trivex is impact resistant. They should be able to offer any of these to you with an added cost.
Trivex & high index plastic are indeed optically clearer than both Cr-39 & poly.
The material can make a difference, but if you believe it's the Rx, you should tell the optometrist to recheck your Rx- it's your right.
Make sure you are specific when you answer during the exam, miscommunication can give you a wrong Rx...
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA
han-shinbi said:
You could use the high index plastic-they are already aspheric I believe since your Rx is high. Trivex is impact resistant. They should be able to offer any of these to you with an added cost.
Trivex & high index plastic are indeed optically clearer than both Cr-39 & poly.
The material can make a difference, but if you believe it's the Rx, you should tell the optometrist to recheck your Rx- it's your right.
Make sure you are specific when you answer during the exam, miscommunication can give you a wrong Rx...
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Higher index results in lower abbe number, resulting in more color fringing. Slightly better than polycarb (highest is 42 vs poly's 30) but I think if they deny me CR39, I'll probably just ask for aspherical Trivex. (does that exist?)
This time, I'm also gonna try not to be so quiet. I usually let them do most of the work with me communicating if something is better or worse, but obviously we need to go further than that. I'll have to communicate that I would like him to keep increasing power until ALL the letters are crystal clear, maybe hold my phone at a distance with some text, or have him open the door so I can see down the hall to the room that's usually empty (lul) whatever I have to say, though! I DO NOT want to go there again! Anyone have any tips as how to explain my "get it perfect or it's unacceptable" way of thinking? Another thing I'll do is I'll ask for a copy of my records, because, honestly, I don't Atlantic Eyecare and want to go elsewhere. Btw guys, my insurance only covers 2 year terms, not 1 year (makes me think of new every two lol)
I've been looking into buying a white N-7000 off ebay but everywhere I look, it's at least $40 more than the black one? I'm seeing black ones for ~$575 and white ones for ~$615.
Because it's way cooler, and because they can!!!
Not being an A-hat, that's the real reason. Supply and demand.
kraz
Because what you perceive as white, isn't really white. In the reflective light scheme, What we "think" is white, really isn't white. It's reflecting ALL colors. If an object is red, it reflects red, and absorbs all other colors. Therefore, to make a white object appear white, they have to have a special paint that will reflect the entire visible spectrum of light, not an easy task. The covers you see in other colors except black, actually started off as white, but failed the test, which is why you see so many other colors available. It isn't easy mixing a color to plastic, to get it to reflect white. Some end up as black, blue, pink, green because they didn't come out right in the manufacturing process.
I really need to lay off the Mt. Dew....you think?
p51d007 said:
Because what you perceive as white, isn't really white. In the reflective light scheme, What we "think" is white, really isn't white. It's reflecting ALL colors. If an object is red, it reflects red, and absorbs all other colors. Therefore, to make a white object appear white, they have to have a special paint that will reflect the entire visible spectrum of light, not an easy task. The covers you see in other colors except black, actually started off as white, but failed the test, which is why you see so many other colors available. It isn't easy mixing a color to plastic, to get it to reflect white. Some end up as black, blue, pink, green because they didn't come out right in the manufacturing process.
I really need to lay off the Mt. Dew....you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DAFUQ! Awesome explanation bro!
coolxal said:
I've been looking into buying a white N-7000 off ebay but everywhere I look, it's at least $40 more than the black one? I'm seeing black ones for ~$575 and white ones for ~$615.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because in this day and age people can't figure out that you can buy a $10 white cover and make a device whatever color you want.
Black is powerful. In my opinion, white is cheap.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA
Nice explanation. Its a fair one. However there are more possibilities:
Price is dependant of supply and demand, if demand is higher they can increase price. This is classic economic thinking.
Or they want to tap into more revenue by offering exclusitivity. Create a wanna have because less people have it because its more expensive. Make it special by feauture/price lol.
Or back to supply demand theory, demand x + price y delivers revenue. If you want to keep that and increase revenue, cater to lower demand but higher price. Or cater to even higher volume at lower price. This last is not that attractive psychology wise for the same product model. I think its called catching the market surplus.
Or copy the path Iphone went, first black edition, then stimulate demand with white edition. Probably for reasons in previous paragraph
Sent from my GT-N7000
Is It?
Here in India both cost the same. Demographic Marketing I guess?
It depends. Here in Poland the black model is more expensive. White models are cheaper and generally very easy to buy cause there's always a lot of white ones on online auctions etc.
Demographic i guess, people here seem not to like white phones. And it happens with other models too ( Galaxy S2 white model is almost 1/4 cheaper )
i agree.....white rules! ......got white
krazman325 said:
Because it's way cooler, and because they can!!!
Not being an A-hat, that's the real reason. Supply and demand.
kraz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't watched the youtube video, but this is promising. I might consider getting an extended warranty for only 19 bucks for this thing!
Computerworld Article
Squaretrade Warranty
I guess 19 is for the 200 version. I got the 16 gig version and the warranty is 27 bucks.
I saw that too but the guy was a little biased. He didn't show the damage the nexus 7 took at the top right corner when they slipped it off the sidewall
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
You realize that that was a commercial for SquareTrade, right?
e.mote said:
You realize that that was a commercial for SquareTrade, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After watching the video, yes, I do realize that.
It wasn't entirely scientific, but did give the impression that the iPad is far more vulnerable to impacts on the edge and corners. Probably a result of having the glass bezel go all the way to the outer edge as opposed to the thin trim present on the Nexus.
>It wasn't entirely scientific, but did give the impression that the iPad is far more vulnerable to impacts on the edge and corners
The results are irrelevant. The video's purpose is to heighten your sensitivity to drops and water damage, and conveniently includes a link to remove those fears (at only nominal cost, of course).
Of course the iPad is more vulnerable. It has more mass, which means greater impact from a drop. Its metallic back also has less give than N7's rubber back.
e.mote said:
The results are irrelevant. The video's purpose is to heighten your sensitivity to drops and water damage, and conveniently includes a link to remove those fears (at only nominal cost, of course).
Of course the iPad is more vulnerable. It has more mass, which means greater impact from a drop. Its metallic back also has less give than N7's rubber back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This video's purpose was irrelevant. Of course they're trying to sell insurance, so what? The difference between them has little to do with the mass, a 100g sheet of glass will crack when dropped on its edge just like a 200g sheet will. But differences in the design channel the force of impact in different directions, and it seems that on the iPad a lot of that force goes into the glass because it's more exposed. It's perfectly possible to design a rigid metal shell that would absorb more of the impact and deform in a way that wouldn't crack the glass, but that might not be as aesthetically pleasing.
>Of course they're trying to sell insurance, so what?
So it's rather inane to think that the drop comparisons mean anything, which they don't. The drops as already mentioned weren't controlled, which relegate the ensuing damage to random chance. You can play what-if games all you like, but none of your suppositions are reflected in the video.
Your protestations of "possibly" differing construction notwithstanding, it's a rather basic law of physics that a heavier object when dropped will result in a larger impact than a lighter object, c.p. Perhaps iPad is made of sturdier design, but you won't know from this video, or from empty pontifications.
50 Bucks if you want the ADH on the 16gb not to bad...Will be getting it for my wife when I buy her one.
hunterhp said:
I saw that too but the guy was a little biased. He didn't show the damage the nexus 7 took at the top right corner when they slipped it off the sidewall
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Noticed that myself: 1:14 "Glass looks okay....." ( edit out screwed up corner ) "Back looks pretty good."
Still its good to hear if I drop this once there is a chance it won't shatter the screen, like every other non-ipad device.
16 Gig is actually 29.99 not 27
I bought my warranty last night. It was 39.99 for 2yrs plus accidental for my 16 gig
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
e.mote said:
>Of course they're trying to sell insurance, so what?
So it's rather inane to think that the drop comparisons mean anything, which they don't. The drops as already mentioned weren't controlled, which relegate the ensuing damage to random chance. You can play what-if games all you like, but none of your suppositions are reflected in the video.
Your protestations of "possibly" differing construction notwithstanding, it's a rather basic law of physics that a heavier object when dropped will result in a larger impact than a lighter object, c.p. Perhaps iPad is made of sturdier design, but you won't know from this video, or from empty pontifications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll leave the pontifications to you, you seem quite good at them.
If their aim was just to sell insurance they'd have biased the drops to show the Nexus 7 taking more damage in the hopes of frightening all those new Nexus owners. Obviously. The same people (squaretrade) posted a video a while ago showing that simply attaching a smart cover to an iPad might protect the glass from cracking. (because it will alter the force distribution). Why did they tell people to go and buy a cover instead of buying their insurance?
And there's no 'possible' about it - the construction of the iPad is radically different to the Nexus 7. The iPad is heavier, but most of the difference in weight is due to the larger battery, what matters is the way the glass is mounted (and the actual composition of the glass, which can alter its resistance to breakage by as much as three times).
No-one ever claimed these tests were scientific or controlled, don't know why you're getting your panties in a twist over that.
charlesky said:
I'll leave the pontifications to you, you seem quite good at them.
If their aim was just to sell insurance they'd have biased the drops to show the Nexus 7 taking more damage in the hopes of frightening all those new Nexus owners. Obviously. The same people (squaretrade) posted a video a while ago showing that simply attaching a smart cover to an iPad might protect the glass from cracking. (because it will alter the force distribution). Why did they tell people to go and buy a cover instead of buying their insurance?
And there's no 'possible' about it - the construction of the iPad is radically different to the Nexus 7. The iPad is heavier, but most of the difference in weight is due to the larger battery, what matters is the way the glass is mounted (and the actual composition of the glass, which can alter its resistance to breakage by as much as three times).
No-one ever claimed these tests were scientific or controlled, don't know why you're getting your panties in a twist over that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the "true" purpose of the video is to sell more insurance (only they know for sure) then they most certainly did the right thing by making the iPad look more fragile. Reason being, despite the N7 being a new tablet, the iPad currently have the most market share compared to the N7, and the iPad costs more so there's a higher chance people would want to insure their $500 iPad than their $250 N7.
CooLoserTech said:
16 Gig is actually 29.99 not 27
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had the price quote based on $250, and not for the total price I paid including tax and shipping. My quote was 26.99.
But just based on pure physics, F=m*a, so of course the Ipad will hit with more force than the n7.
When I went to the check out part, apparently the coverage for accidental drops and whatnot is not included in that warranty. Its an extra $33. But no deductible. I wish I would have known about this place a few weeks ago
>If their aim was just to sell insurance they'd have biased the drops to show the Nexus 7 taking more damage in the hopes of frightening all those new Nexus owners. Obviously.
My, such certitude. It must be nice to know everything.
I'm not blessed with such gifts, but taking this thread as a microcosm, then there apparently is no need to "frighten" the viewers to secure the desired response. Of the 8 people with replies in this thread, two have responded they will be buying a policy, one has looked up pricing (which is halfway there). One has already bought, so we'll exclude him.
The sample size is admittedly small, but two, possibly three, out of 7 is a wonderful conversion rate for an advertisement.
I'll leave my credentials at the door, but I would posit that there is no need to "scare" people. It's enough to heighten their sensitivity to effect the desired behavior.
Additionally, given that this material is directed at the geek set (who tend to be more fanboys than not), then positioning the N7 as the "winner" would more likely secure a favorable reception than if the N7 had come out the "loser." Per selective input, we tend to filter out material we disagree with. HEY, WE KNOW ANDROID AND NEXUS 7 RULE, RIGHT? AND HERE'S YET MORE PROOF. Indeed, some had mentioned of bias in assessing N7's damage.
Yes, the above are suppositions. But they're supported with evidence and reasoning, rather than hot air.
>Why did they tell people to go and buy a cover instead of buying their insurance?
Because that would make it obvious that it's an advertisement. Adverts are most effective when you don't think of them as adverts. Per above, you don't need to hit people on the head with a hammer. A nudge usually works better.
>If the "true" purpose of the video is to sell more insurance (only they know for sure) then they most certainly did the right thing by making the iPad look more fragile.
Actually, no. The target audience for this advert is mainly N7 owners. It's a common tendency for people to check for reviews and comparisons of their new purchases AFTER they buy, to look for affirmation of their choice.
Another tendency is that people are most receptive to buying a policy immediately before or after their main purchase, ie N7 owners at this point. If you've already had your tablet for a while, then you are less likely to buy a policy.
e.mote said:
I'll leave my credentials at the door, but I would posit that there is no need to "scare" people. It's enough to heighten their sensitivity to effect the desired behavior.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have credentials? You mean you work in insurance?
It certainly makes sense to capitalise on the popularity of geek-toy-destruction videos and provide something amusing that will get your name in front of people. But it seems an extremely arcane piece of reverse-psychology to purposely rig the results to show tablets surviving all sorts of damage unscathed and claim that will make people want to buy insurance. Why bother buying protection from water damage when you can drop a Nexus 7 in the bath and it'll still work fine? (Er, I really hope no-one actually believes that's OK.)
While I'd agree that people who've just bought a shiny new toy are far more likely to approve of a video that shows said toy beating the competition, wouldn't it make sense to show it suffering some damage? 'Yeah, the Nexus 7 is far tougher than the crappy old iPad, but hey, it can still get a bit dinged up. Don't you want the peace-of-mind that comes with an insurance policy?' Instead, we see people complaining that they're actually trying to hide some minor damage on the Nexus.
I think you're massively over-thinking this. All they wanted to do was make a video people would be interested in watching, so they went outside and filmed themselves dropping a couple of tablets. And that's all there is to it. The iPad's highly-rigid design means it doesn't suffer the issues with screen-lift or creaking that some people are reporting, and the lack of a trim-strip gives it a slightly cleaner line, but it also means it's more vulnerable to impacts - not really surprising.
>But it seems an extremely arcane piece of reverse-psychology to purposely rig the results to show tablets surviving all sorts of damage unscathed and claim that will make people want to buy insurance.
You must have seen a different video than I did.
>All they wanted to do was make a video people would be interested in watching, so they went outside and filmed themselves dropping a couple of tablets. And that's all there is to it.
Why yes of course that's all it is. I'm sure they're just a bunch of fun-loving guys.
>iPad's highly-rigid design means it doesn't suffer the issues with screen-lift or creaking that some people are reporting,
Novel interpretation. Here's a more mundane one: iPad has better build quality.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9J7GpVQCfms
Firstly, wow. If that becomes legit that would be intense but I've looked at the website and they state they are still working on a prototype so I think the video is faked to some degree.
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
Looks quite a bit like a scam...
Still, that would be absolutely epic.
Yea, I've seen outlandish claims like this to generate funds from investors then it fails and they walk away with the money....
Obviously lots of potential for bugs.
I personally don't think I would like it as it would never compare to the quality of viewing a real screen.
But quite interesting!
Would people with hairy arms have to shave one arm?
I noticed white arms look better than tanned too!
But even the underside of my arm has a fair amount of hair.
I bought Samsung Note 8 at the price of 56,000INR.
I added Samsung official back cover.
One fine day my phone fell from my bed side-table(barely 2 feet) and to my horror, not only its glass was damaged, its display got damaged as well.
If company boasts usage of Gorilla glass 5 and claims of doing multiple drop tests, how can the phone get damaged so easily by a mere 2 feet drop?
I filed a complaint to customer support saying that "I do not think the quality of product is at par with the price tag" and I am told that I will have to bear the expenses. The repair cost is approx 18,000 INR and they are giving me 25% discount which brings down the repair cost to approx 13,000 INR which is still too high.
Samsung makes a tall claim about drop tests. I have a youtube video link where they boast about drop tests, but couldn't share it here since the forum doesn't allow sharing outside links.
I consider this as "Misleading Advertisement" case.
I am thinking of suing the company on the grounds that:
1) They are misleading the customer with such ads
2) They are charging customer for a bad product. If the phone has Gorilla glass, the glass should have broken and protected the display from being damaged.
Do you guys think it is worthwhile taking the efforts to sue Samsung?
You dropped your phone, now it is broken. It will be very difficult that the drop in your case should not have damaged phone.
Samsung may have done a lot to make the phone more durable and more resistant to drops etc., but it doesn't mean the phone is drop proof.
Insurance can cover damage due to accidents, Samsung will not. Any coulance in reducing repair costs by Samsung is a bonus and all in my view you can expect.
Bottom line: don't sue Samsung.
You dropped the phone, then it is YOUR fault, just like that, the device was not designed or constructed to be undestructible or entirely shock proof, there are some heavy duty devices outhere,, but even those can suffer damage, the tests measure the capacity of the device to continue to operate after drops, shocks etc, that is, to be able to function, make and receive calls, the screen beeing legible and responsive to touch
If you have a history of dropping phones I'd strongly encourage you buy a Moto Z. The body is composed of metal, and the screen is shatter proof. I baby phones that are sandwiched between glass, whereas my Moto can handle drops unscathed.
The phone screen is glass.. The phone back is glass.. What makes u think dropping the phone won't break the glass?
No improvements? Ok let's compete it to another type of glass we all know.. Try a glass cup. Drop it and see.
Now do you see the improvements?
Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
amolguravxda said:
I bought Samsung Note 8 at the price of 56,000INR.
I added Samsung official back cover.
One fine day my phone fell from my bed side-table(barely 2 feet) and to my horror, not only its glass was damaged, its display got damaged as well.
If company boasts usage of Gorilla glass 5 and claims of doing multiple drop tests, how can the phone get damaged so easily by a mere 2 feet drop?
I filed a complaint to customer support saying that "I do not think the quality of product is at par with the price tag" and I am told that I will have to bear the expenses. The repair cost is approx 18,000 INR and they are giving me 25% discount which brings down the repair cost to approx 13,000 INR which is still too high.
Samsung makes a tall claim about drop tests. I have a youtube video link where they boast about drop tests, but couldn't share it here since the forum doesn't allow sharing outside links.
I consider this as "Misleading Advertisement" case.
I am thinking of suing the company on the grounds that:
1) They are misleading the customer with such ads
2) They are charging customer for a bad product. If the phone has Gorilla glass, the glass should have broken and protected the display from being damaged.
Do you guys think it is worthwhile taking the efforts to sue Samsung?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is up with everyone wanting to sue Samsung? Is this because of the recent trend in America where everyone sues each other for absolutely no reason, now everyone else also wants to sue someone to make a bit of money because they're unhappy? "I'm unhappy, now you have to pay me".
Basically any lawyer you tell your story to, will laugh at you. Sure, Gorilla Glass 5 is supposed to be stronger, but the glass is also a lot thinner than they used to be 8 years ago. Just because it's been drop-tested, doesn't mean it's indestructible. It's still glass and it will still break. Samsung didn't falsely advertise anything. They just said it's been drop-tested, not that it won't or can't break. Plus, also, you dropped it and it's your fault. Samsung isn't liable for your own negligence. Suing a company for "false advertising" is just saying "I broke it and now I'm unhappy and don't want to pay the repair, so instead I want to try and make money out of them for my unhappiness".
Bottom line. No, I don't think you can sue Samsung because of that. What do you think the courts of the world would look like if every person tried to sue a mobile manufacturer for false advertising, every time they dropped their phone? Why do you think you haven't seen or heard of any such cases happening before? Because it's just ludicrous.
Stop being salty because you were negligent and broke your expensive device, and either pay the repair or get a different device. At the end of the day, no one buys a Note device for their reputable sturdy and ruggedness and resistance to breaking.