• kn33@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 年前

            In this case it’s “Ingress Protection” rating - as in how well it prevents water and dust from getting inside the phone when exposed.

            Edit: since I’m on hold and bored, here’s the Bard description of the rating system

            The Ingress Protection (IP) rating system is a two-digit code that tells you how well an enclosure is protected against dust and water. Here’s a quick breakdown:

            • First digit: This is for solid objects, like dust, fingers, or tools. It goes from 0 (no protection) to 6 (dust-tight).
            • Second digit: This is for water, like splashes, rain, or immersion. It goes from 0 (no protection) to 9 (protected against high-pressure water jets).

            So, an IP67 rating means the device is dust-tight and can withstand being submerged in water for a short time.

            Here are some real-world examples:

            • IP44: Splashproof phone, suitable for light rain or spills.
            • IP65: Dustproof camera, good for outdoor use but not submersion.
            • IPX7: Waterproof smartwatch, can survive a dunk in the pool.
            • IP68: Rugged phone, can handle being underwater for extended periods.

            Remember, IP ratings are just guidelines. Always check the manufacturer’s instructions for specific usage advice.

    • jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 年前

      Do you own one? i bought the phone 1 to use as a work phone and its been pretty stellar tbh. Not something to use as a daily, I’d prefer a flagship for that but the phone has been really good to me

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 年前

        Honestly the fact that you explicitly say you wouldn’t use it as a daily driver, when that’s all most people have… is a terrible review.

        • jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 年前

          Ehhh no i’m just not the right consumer.

          The phone is great for someone who wants a phone that still feels premium while being willing to sacrifice some of the frills like a slightly better camera, higher water resistance, etc

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 年前

            It’s not just water resistance, it’s not even dust proof which is extremely easy to achieve in this day and age.

  • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    3 年前

    I am not surprised.

    The description of the app just screamed security nightmare.

    It was like a man in the middle attack opt-in service.

  • Renohren@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 年前

    Yeah, it’s alright. it might have cost 2$ more per phone to get some cybersecurity firm to audit all their services, fix them before launch and provide continuous monitoring. Who can afford 2$ on a 700 phone?.. /S

    How on earth would anybody launch a tech product without being serious on encryption and data protection in 2023?

    I consider those flaws to be purposefull. Carl Pei cannot invoque the inexperience card anymore.

    At least Google, Apple and Samsung protects the data they collect on their users, they know it’s value and they don’t want to share that money making data.

  • Fake4000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 年前

    Never liked Chinese brand phones.

    They are always filled with security holes, sometimes “accidentally on purpose”.