Why Are the Chinese Brand Phones (Huawei, Honor, Oppo, Xiaomi) Crushing the Competition in Camera Quality

On Sun, 17 May 2020 20:02:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 17 May 2020 08:00:58 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:



The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'

And I told you:

For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
longer interval from their release than other phones.

the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
fees.

google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
highest ever'. money talks.

Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.

Do you really believe nospam?

He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
support it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
highest ever'. money talks.

Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.

Do you really believe nospam?

He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
support it.

Regarding this astute comment moments ago from Eric Stevens:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.photo.digital/C9L8UzRuPjE/5FfN2qiDAQAJ

I've studied the strange brains of these Apple apologists for years.
o People like nospam have no adult defense to facts.

It's easy to figure out how nospam will react to _any_ fact about Apple
o Years before the fact even occurs.

Essentially, assume nospam works for Apple MARKETING...
o And assume nospam doesn't believe a single word he says himself.

Then, assume Apple MARKETING wouldn't like whatever "fact" it is.
o Now, you can guess what nospam will say, well ahead of time.

1. First, nospam will flatly deny the fact is a fact
(e.g., he denies that the DXOMark reviews are valid)
2. If he can't flatly deny it, he will blame everyone but Apple
(e.g., when he blames Google for "bribing" DXO Mark)
3. If he can't deny it or blame someone else, he will deflect it
(e.g., he'll go down some path that has nothing to do with the fact)

This technique works perfectly for nospam on all the Apple newsgroups
o I assess that's simply because those are particularly immune to facts.

However, on _adult_ ngs, like the Linux or Android ngs,
o This technique fails more often than not for nospam

Worse, when he runs into intelligent people who can comprehend facts
o Then nospam has absolutely no defense other than to change the facts

Literally, nospam will _edit_ someone else's quoted text
o Just so that he can THEN _respond_ to that (now edited) quoted text!

Don't believe me?
o Here are _multiple_ threads showing proof of exactly that!

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children
in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ

Every time nospam runs across facts where the technique above fails him
o He then resorts to _changing_ the facts, so that he can respond!

See also:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the
Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/O7CQGvc6AgAJ

Notice the weakness of all apologists... is simple.
o Apologists like nospam have no adult response to facts.
--
Appologists have no adult defense to facts.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


The question here is why the Chinese do so well with camera QOR.
o Of the top ten phones, none are what we might call "American".'

And I told you:

For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
longer interval from their release than other phones.

the reason is because apple does not play their games and pay their
fees.

google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
highest ever'. money talks.

Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.

Do you really believe nospam?

He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
support it.

oh yes i have, as have many, many other people.

you simply refuse to believe that dxo is a sleazy company.

On 2020-05-18 2:39 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 21:08:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

google, on the other hand, is happy to not only pay dxomark, but to
also supply them with *prerelease* phones so that they can quote a
score at the product announcement. nor surprisingly, the score was 'the
highest ever'. money talks.

Good to know. One more reason to despise DXO.

Do you really believe nospam?

He's been making this claim for years and never produced anything to
support it.

Regarding this astute comment moments ago from Eric Stevens...

This is the third place you've posted exactly the same information
("verbatim").

On 2020-05-17 8:15 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
longer interval from their release than other phones.

Alan,
How many iPhones has Apple ever made?

I haven't counted them.

o And how many are on the tested list at this very moment?

Again, I haven't counted.


HINT: Almost all of them.

You seem to be making the famous claim that the next phone will be the
killer even though _all_ the prior phones aren't even on the top ten.

Nope. I'm not making that claim at all.

I'm claiming that in a fast-moving and competitive marketplace, it makes
a large difference to where a product will come out in testing if you
test it significantly later than than its competition.

Let's look at the top 10:

Phone Score Release Test Posted Delay Country

Huawei
P40 Pro 128 2020-04-07 2020-03-31 -7 China


Honor
30 Pro+ 125 2020-04-21 2020-04-15 -6 China

(Again: test posted BEFORE the phones release. -6


Oppo
Find X2 Pro 124 2020-03-06 2020-03-06 0 China


Xiaomi
Mi 10 Pro 124 2020-02-18 2020-02-13 -5 China


Huawei
Mate 30 Pro 5G 123 2019-10-23 2019-12-17 +47 China


Honor
V30 Pro 122 2020-02-?? 2020-01-17 -?? China


Samsung
Galaxy S20 Ultra 122 2020-03-06 2020-04-22 +47 S.Korea

Huawei
Mate 30 Pro 121 2019-09-26 2019-09-26 0 China

Xiaomi Mi CC9 Pro
Premium Edition 121 2019-11-11 2019-11-05 -6 China

Samsung Galaxy
S20+ 118 2020-03-06 2020-05-11 66 S.Korea

Apple iPhone
11 Pro Max 117 2019-09-20 2019-11-07 48 USA

In only ONE case in there, did a Chinese company's phone have a
significant delay between release and testing.



It's classic for you apologists to simply fabricate your excuses for Apple.

What your response proves is you're _desperate_ to fabricate an excuse for
why _every_ iPhone that _was_ already tested (and that's literally almost
every iPhone ever made!), isn't even on the top ten.

When Apple iPhone are regularly tested after a long delay, it is natural
that other products that get test without delay (and even BEFORE their
release) are going to arrive with better specifications.


What's interesting is how _desperate_ you apologists are to claim that
Apple MARKETING brochures are the gospel and that every tester on the
planet is being _bribed_ by everyone but Apple (according to nospam)...

Why else are iPhones almost never even in the top list of camera QOR?
o It must be a conspiracy because MARKETING brochures are so very pretty.

They ARE in the top list, Liar.

Wasn't it you who said there are 24,000 models of Android phone?

Don't they all have cameras?

Or is that claim now inconvenient?


How could an Apple MARKETING brochure possibly not be right!
o nospam: It must be that Apple didn't _bribe_ the reliable testers
o Baker: It must be that the reliable testers _forgot_ Apple existed

From the FACTS, it certainly looks like Chinese manufacturers are
getting better treatment.

On 2020-05-17 12:42 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2020 23:45:38 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

And I told you:

For whatever reason it happens, DXOMark tests iPhones after a much
longer interval from their release than other phones.

Alan,

You're the only one on this planet who doesn't realize these simple facts:
o Which is likely why you & nospam are so desperate to deflect the subject.

1. *Apple phones _are_ on the DXOMark list; they just aren't on the top ten!*

And they are typically tested after a significant delay after their
release. In a fast-moving, competitive technological marketplace, that
pretty much guarantees that phones that are reviewed shortly after their
release (or in the case of most Chinese phones, BEFORE their release)
will have more advances in camera technology.

2. *Virtually all Apple phones are tested; they just not in the top ten!*

See above.


It's not that DXOMark doesn't test the iPhones; it's that the iPhones score
so low that you don't _see_ any iPhone in the top ten (currently).

It's that they test the iPhones significantly later than they test the
phones which are at the top.


You can't see they're in the list; they're just not in the top ten slots.
o The top ten slots, to the point of this thread, are mostly Chinese.

And get tested before their even released.

Weird, huh?


Again, you apologists apparently _hate_ the glossy brochures make out Apple
camera QOR to be far better than any reliable testers can verify in fact.

Maybe you apologists should stop believing only what's in the brochures?

On Tue, 19 May 2020 11:51:47 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

For a noise free Usenet experience filters/kill-files
are an essential tool, and should be used.

*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.

Here's a typical Usenet discussion WITHOUT apologists playing games:
o Tutorial for setting up Ubuntu as a Windows Subsystem for Linux WSL in Windows 10
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/PV4Shdb67iM

Notice how _different_ a normal adult conversation is?
o Notice that the apologists aren't playing their games on it?

Notice "Chris", who is an apologist, didn't play his silly games?
o And yet, notice Alan Baker _did_ play his silly games on that.

But nobody else did - because it's not about Apple products.
o The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple.

Why are apologists like Savageduck so afraid of facts?
o I don't know why.

I suspect since facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems...
o That they wish to remain incredibly ignorant of the facts.

Being ignorant, like Savageduck claims he wishes to be...
o Helps apologists maintain their purely imaginary belief systems.

*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.
--
Without apologists, this newsgroup would have adult conversations.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 20:00:33 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

It's that they test the iPhones significantly later than they test the
phones which are at the top.

Alan,

Do you even realize how _desperate_ you are to fabricate any _excuse_ for
why Apple iPhones rarely are high in the top ten at any given time frame?

On 2020-05-19 3:41 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2020 11:51:47 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

For a noise free Usenet experience filters/kill-files
are an essential tool, and should be used.

*The apologist, in a word, is deathly _afraid_ of facts about Apple*.

Why is your post in reply to me, Liar?



Why don't you deal with the detailed information I gave you on when
phones get tested by DXOMark?

On 2020-05-20 6:31 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2020 20:00:33 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

It's that they test the iPhones significantly later than they test the
phones which are at the top.

Alan,

Do you even realize how _desperate_ you are to fabricate any _excuse_ for
why Apple iPhones rarely are high in the top ten at any given time frame?


Sorry, Liar.

Put back all the text you snipped and I'll reply to that question.