The odds of dying in a car wreck are twice as high as this thing “exploding.” I’m keeping it.
This author does an interesting calculation, but he does it wrong. The 100 Note7s that have exploded, out of 2.5M sold, were all used for 2 months or less since the phone has only been on the market that long. When you correct for this, the rate of fires over a 2 year ownership period is roughly 1 in 1000. (Probably higher, for several reasons.)
Second, lithium battery fires are nasty, smelly, and dangerous because they can set other things on fire. I speak from personal experience. Do you want to leave a device plugged in at night that may have a .1% chance of burning your house down over the period that you own it? I hope not.
His car wreck odds calculation (1 in 12000), by the way, may be per-year, but again he does not realize that it matters. But he is right that cars are plenty dangerous. I once estimate that at birth an American has a 50% chance of being hospitalized due to a car accident during their lifetime.
There are many other TOM issues to do with this Samsung Note7 recall. Clearly they have internal problems, and problems somewhere in management.
I have been contributing to the comments section of this article on battery safety. Battery fires from cheap lithium-ion batteries are a genuine hazard, as I know from flying RC aircraft.
Learn what causes Li-ion to fail and what to do in case of fire. Battery makers are obligated to meet safety requirements, but less reputable firms may cheat.
Batteries in brand-name electronics (such as phones and laptop computers) with built-in charging systems are well made and are very safe unless physically damaged e.g. in a car crash. But cheap batteries, which some people are starting to use in flashlights and vaping devices, are much riskier. Among other cautions, do not charge freestanding lithium-ion batteries unattended. The house you save may be your own.
Here is the site’s home page, which covers far more than safety. http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/
Every electronics company dreams of starting a new platform that other firms adopt and build on. It’s one of the few paths to riches in electronics (think: iPhone, Android, Blu-Ray, CDMA, Steam, Playstation). Check out extensive writing by my friend Michael Cusumano and his colleague Annabelle Gawer, such as this article in Sloan Management Review. (May be behind a paywall.) Although even if successful, the originator may have to make so many deals that it does not capture much rent. (Think: Android again, Blu-Ray again, Wi-Fi, 4G, HDTV, etc.) And doing it successfully is very hard, even for large companies.
A related dream is modularity without sacrificing performance. This has been discussed for cell phones for many years, although in the past I have been skeptical. This article, though, sounds as if Motorola has a chance at doing both. Technically, it sounds like a good concept, if they can pull it off as well as the article suggests. Of course, technical excellence is never sufficient to become a standard. And Motorola, with all its ownership turmoil in recent years, is not very credible. But I’m heartened to think that the goal of a modular smartphone may be technically realistic, which would be great for consumers. (It’s important that Moto is not talking about creating a new operating system or app platform. Just look at Nokia and Microsoft to see how hard that is.)
The NY Times says nobody knows how the FBI decrypted the infamous iPhone. That is certainly true, but there is speculation about physically opening up one of its chips and reading its crypto key. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/03/29/us/politics/ap-us-apple-encryption.html Years ago, I looked at reverse engineering of chip designs by physically disassembling them. Here are some comments on how difficult this is, although it certainly may be possible.
Physically attacking a chip is an old, but difficult, method of breaking into a system that you control. In 2008, Ed Felton and others read DRAM chips that had been turned off, by freezing them in liquid nitrogen. But they were reading the outside pins of the chip package. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/technology/22chip.html Partly to prevent that, but mostly for speed and cost reasons, processors like those inside a smart phone now include modules like graphics, cache, and security on the same die and chip. So there is no way to read such data from outside the package, unless a design has a bug.
To read signals from inside a chip, you need to figure out the logical and physical layouts of the chip, which are proprietary and, with up to 100 million logic gates, very complex. Then you need to be able to inject and read signals with a physical separation of 100 nanometers(nm) or less. By comparison, the wavelength of light is 400 nm or greater. And the chip designers knew you might try, and perhaps did their best to make it impossible. Of course, companies still attempt to reverse engineer their competitors’ chips, so some expertise does exist.
Finally, if you are physically slicing up a unique device, I would guess that one slip and you may not be able to recover. You can’t just shut off power and start over the way you can with software attacks.
Here is one example of successfully dissecting a security chip, back in 2010. It was not easy!
Wired has a good article on fires from “hoverboards,” which are essentially very small hands-free electric scooters. Here is an example. Start at about the :30 mark to see how these devices explode, and can easily set a house on fire.
Neither Wired nor other news stories have much constructive advice about how to reduce the chance of fires. As they point out, buying a well-made model is important, but at present there is no way to distinguish the well-made ones from the knock-offs. And most are cheap knock-offs by companies that will be gone in a year.
I have some experience with the underlying cause of these fires, their Lithium-based batteries, because I use them in radio controlled aircraft. Fires of these batteries are not common, but they happen. Two people in San Diego who I know directly have had major fires. One lost a 2-unit condo, the other a detached workshop. The second one happened to an expert in RC flying!
With the new A9 and A9X chips in its iPhones and iPads, Apple has mobile chips that are better than Intel’s. In fact Apple’s chip business is a very impressive technology story. I don’t have time to put together a full analysis, but I have collected some recent articles.
Many sources are suggesting that Apple’s current chip generation (A9 and A9X) is better than Intel’s in low-power (mobile) performance. I guess it’s not news that Intel is behind Qualcomm in mobile, but I still find it surprising that Apple’s own chips are apparently better than X86 for Macintosh low-end laptops!