Apple display supplier BOE may lose all iPhone 14 orders after trying to cheat:
The problems faced by tertiary Apple display supplier BOE appear to have gone from bad to worse, according to a new report. The company is now in danger of losing all orders for the iPhone 14. Too many of the company's displays were failing to pass quality control checks, and BOE reportedly tried to solve this by quietly changing the specs – without telling Apple ...
Chinese display manufacturer BOE was only ever third-placed in Apple's supply chain, behind Samsung and LG, but was still hoping to make as many as 40M OLED screens this year for a range of iPhone models.
BOE hit two problems, however, which put this number in doubt. First, it was struggling to buy enough display driver chips. As we noted previously, these are one of the worst-hit components in the global chip shortage.
Second, BOE was experiencing poor yield rates – the proportion of units that passed quality control.
Yield rates are always a challenge for Apple suppliers, as the company's specs are often tighter than those set by other smartphone makers. Even Samsung Display, which has the most-advanced OLED manufacturing capabilities, has at times had yield rates as low as 60% for iPhone displays.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @05:58PM (2 children)
40M OLED screens for 40M idiot bricks. No one really needs this stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @07:23PM
-nomsg
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @07:33PM
It is necessary for the surveillance state
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday May 24 2022, @08:28PM (3 children)
A) They tried to stealthily change the requirements so their failing units would "meet spec"
B) They're a Chinese company.
Why is there a "may" here? A) would lead to using a chainsaw to cut through half that branch along with a sternly written letter. B would be using that chainsaw to cut through the entire branch, given the events of the past 2-3 years.
To be honest, if I was the Man In Charge (ok, PiC) and A happened they would be toast. Reading the tea leaves B would be strongly in effect but, if a company tried to change the requirements I gave them so their shit hardware would pass, then, well. Nice knowing you, we be done.
I just passed a drug test. My dealer has some explaining to do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday May 24 2022, @09:42PM (2 children)
Why is there a "may"?
Because Apple hasn't yet said otherwise, and they don't care about your opinion.
Modern "journalists" already do far too much sensationalist speculation, and far too little actual research. The last thing we need is more idiots encouraging them to present the former as if it were the latter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2022, @06:12PM (1 child)
I'm really torn on this. Yes, this is "Apple MAY ___." However, rumors and speculation is also important (e.g. people trade stock based on it), and if they waited for Apple to act, it'd be way too late to report on, "yeah, 6-months ago, this company was caught doing whatever-whatever." On the other hand, talking about speculation as if it were fact is also bad, too.
By analogy, in science, there is a value in each of the following hypothetical situation:
1) People in Region1 noted to have lower instances of skin cancer than expected.
2) Speculation that DietB related to skin cancer prevention.
3) Anecdotal evidence suggests that eating PlantC related to skin cancer prevention.
4) Initial, non-rigorous tests suggest eating PlantC can prevent skin cancer.
5) Initial rigorous tests suggest eating PlantC can prevent skin cancer.
6) Follow-up studies reproduce result that eating PlantC can prevent skin cancer.
7) Initial, non-rigorous tests suggest ChemicalD within PlantC can prevent skin cancer.
8) Initial, rigorous tests suggest ChemicalD can prevent skin cancer.
9) Follow-up studies reproduce result that ChemicalD can prevent skin cancer.
For all of those steps, there is the risk of "this is still unknown, more studies required" as well as "this is already known, why are you repeating it?"
I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe the headline should be "BOE allegedly caught surreptitiously changing specifications." However, that title is also kind of weak, and would people even notice the article?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 25 2022, @09:02PM
I'm not inherently opposed to speculation - just speculation posing as real information. Which it would be if they dropped the "may", as GP proposed.
Also note that only (2) and (3) in your example are speculation, and at that stage there really isn't anything worth reporting except (1). The rest involve first noting a confirmed but unexplained phenomena, and then beginning to establish likely evidence-based explanations for it. By (6) they already have confirmed and actionable results definitely worth reporting - the rest is just isolating the particularly method for rigorous pharmaceutical applications. E.g. "eating oranges prevents scurvy was incredibly useful health advice long before anyone knew *why* that was true. And knowing that vitamin C is the chemical responsible is minimally useful outside of acute medical care and selling vitamin supplements to people who can't be bothered to eat healthily.
People rarely hear about scientists speculating, because they're not going to risk their reputation talking about their ideas to journalists until they have at least some evidence to back it up - at which point it's no longer just speculation (At least (4), and possibly (5)). Even in the theoretical fields very few will talk about their more speculative theories with journalists until they've done a whole lot of rigorous mathematical analysis to ensure that it's at least mostly consistent with the body of accumulated data. Doing otherwise just invites ridicule.
Compare that to "journalistic" speculation, which amounts to reporting on unconfirmed rumors at best, and creating those rumors from whole cloth at worst. Often going so far as to knowingly spread falsehoods under the guise of "asking questions" in order to attract an audience: "Does voting Republican cause cancer?"
Responsible journalism always involves research - even if you're reporting on controversial and unconfirmed scientific results with only a single existing source, you do some background research into that source - Do their unaffiliated peers hold them in at least the basic respect due a scientist that does responsible work? Or are they a senile quack in a lab coat chasing unicorns? Or worse, a known con artist willing to whore their credentials to help people sell their latest fad diet, leaded gasoline additive, or healthy tobacco products?
And generally speaking there's no reason to report on anything to the general public before independent reproduction has occurred at stage 6 - at stage 5 you finally ehave enough evidence to publish in scientific journals, but it's still almost certainly false. Roughly 80% of published research fails is later proven wrong - as should be expected, since publication is how you first communicate your results so that peer review can begin. And if someone can't even get their claims published in a respected scientific journal, then that likely means their research was so glaringly flawed that their peers regard it as not even worth serious consideration, much less trying to replicate.
Failing to loudly and prominently report the fact that tentative results are in fact probably wrong is how you end up with large numbers of people taking dangerous and poorly-dosed horse dewormer to try to treat a serious viral infection, because a few initial studies showed promising results that were later disproven.