It really depends on the model, manufacturer, & luck. I’ve never had a phone lose its water resistance. The phone I use today (a 13 mini) is almost five years old and I clean it by running it under the faucet.
I'd return it if a brand new device that advertised IP67 died almost immediately under a normal sink water flow. Clearly it wasn't built to spec and one can't trust the rest of their manufacturing.
But I mean that's just similarly true of Samsung products. I avoid them like the plague. I haven't had a good Samsung device in almost 20 years, and used to be a Samsung fan
They said 2 years after purchase. So that's where the debate is. How long should we hold manufacturers accountable for in regards to waterproofing? 1 year, 2 years, forever?
I had a Pixel 6a last year bought not too long after it came out. I left it on a patio table. I was hosing things off and there was a significant amount of over spray on to the table. The screen died over the course of a couple of hours due to water ingreess.
I definitely don't mean to call into question Pixel device robustness overall into question. I'm just trying to point out even well glued phones eventually develop weaknesses to their seams. And this was a device I routinely washed iin the sink to clean, it really caught me off guard when it failed.
I'm kinda surprised with esim, wireless charging and Bluetooth noones just made a phone with a solid layer of glass completely surrounding it for 100% waterproofing
A lack of physical port makes troubleshooting more difficult. Apple didn’t remove the diagnostic port from their watches until the series 7. Also I think certain governments require that phones have a USB-C port.
Lobby from the other people selling energy: the not green type. They have the money, the lawyers, the ads, everything. Balcony solar power is only allowed now due to energy shortage.
My understanding is that when buying a car you are dealing with an oligopoly. You might think that you have a lot of options, but they all come from the same source. Furthermore, big money control not only car production, but oil too. If they allow the ceo of a car company to come with such a car, they loose billions in the oil industry. So they have no incentive to do that.
New options do appear on the market like the new toyota prius with solar panel, but if you look at it you will see that they didn't even try to maximize the solar panel size. Still it gets 2 km extra range in bad conditions. Triple that and you have 6 km, in real conditions. If you use your car every other day, you will never charge it, ever. If you get average or above sun, you can drive it daily and not charge it ever. A big problem if you sell oil.
The problem with green energy is that it is very democratic and hard to control. Nobody with big money is interested in that.
To understand who controls your life, see all the draconian measures taken against electric scooters: cheap, not poluting, democratic, don't need a lot of space and so on. Everyone with money said: we can't allow that. Write defamatory articles in the media they control, pass laws against it and so on.
> The problem with green energy is that it is very democratic and hard to control.
It's not that I totally disagree with this - there is some truth to it. But it has no bearing at all on the question "can I put the panels on the car instead?" Which has been debunked in this thread and elsewhere many, many times.
The counterargument to what you say is that Solar is in fact booming. It is coming - oil money can slow it, but not stop it. They have more success in some countries than others. It's not a coincidence that China, which course desires energy independence but doesn't have access to a lot of oil, is leading the way. Sorry USA, you're laggards now.
But solar + battery is on an exponential ramp-up and getting big now. Each shock like the current Hormoz idiocy makes the case for it even more to the rest of the world. It's coming, fast.
Just, it's not useful on car roofs. That's a poor choice of panel location.
Just an aside, but China is the 5th largest oil producer. They have a lot of oil. The problem is that they're the 2nd largest oil consumer, so are still importing. Their current course is sufficient to achieve energy independence.
It's kind of unfortunate they don't need to further decarbonize to achieve that independence. There are some other fields that aren't yet economically valid to decarbonize. If China had a non-economic reason to decarbonize jet fuel, steel, plastic etc they might drive enough volume to make them economic.
reply