Jump to content

Talk:OnePlus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benchmark Cheating

[edit]

Oh wow, looks like this is a long running issue of people trying to add this, and Emir denying it for changing reasons. Emir, could you clarify what your current issues are with the section so that they can be addressed and have the section added. It seems your prior concerns were already addressed (especially as it is now a long running corporate policy issue spanning at least four devices). Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not require a section be perfect before it can be included. The iterative editing process requires a baseline be established that we can build around, and just hard reverting any attempt at editing it is not really conducive to discussion. For ease of discussion, I have copied the version I added to the article below (but the version proposed above can work too): 72.139.70.6 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2017, XDA Developers discovered that with the launch of the Android 7.0 Nougat update, OnePlus introduced a software defeat device into the code of the OnePlus 3 and the OnePlus 3T, relaxing thermal throttling and increasing clock speeds when the phone detected that it was in a benchmark app, in order to boost benchmark scores.[1][2] This came as a bit of a shock to much of the Android enthusiast community, as every major manufacturer had removed their benchmark cheating code following the massive backlash that occurred when it was originally discovered on other devices in 2013.[3][4] OnePlus immediately stated that they would be removing the benchmark cheating from future software versions, and that they weren't sure how it made it into a production build.[1] OnePlus later reversed this decision with the OnePlus 5, reintroducing the software that locked clock speeds to their maximum while in a benchmark,[5] and then finally removed it with the launch of the OnePlus 5T.[6]

The main issue would be the notability and WP:DUE weight. What sources mention OnePlus cheating benchmarks with regards to the company and not specific products. How many sources link the issues together? We need to make sure that we don't engage in WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notability and DUE, there are 228,000 results for "OnePlus benchmark cheating" on Google, with coverage from both original sources like XDA, as well as other smartphone news websites, and even print news (specifically in India). That seems fairly substantial coverage of the issue. Not mentioning it would be not giving the controversy its due weight.72.139.70.6 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Company issue vs. device issue. The XDA articles that found the issues explicitly talk about how this is a company decision and a choice that OnePlus are waffling on (and retroactively changing across their product line through software updates), not a device specific issue.72.139.70.6 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: linking the issues together. All of the sources for the later issues discuss the earlier versions of the issue on previous devices, and how it is an ongoing matter.72.139.70.6 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments?72.139.70.6 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for D4R1U5. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then lets ping @D4R1U5: again. They've been on Wikipedia over the past couple days but haven't commented yet. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two weeks since the last ping. I think we're good to move on at this point. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:NORUSH. I'll ping @D4R1U5: one last time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is WP:NORUSH. If there was, it would have been finished in January 2017, or one of the previous times it was brought up. We're beyond rushing, we're just delaying now. That being said, keep in mind that WP:NORUSH is not a Wikipedia rule or even a guideline. It is a persuasive essay, just like WP:There is a deadline and WP:The deadline is now.72.139.70.6 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, here's one more ping of @D4R1U5:, because I would like to see their input if possible.72.139.70.6 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Talk:OnePlus 5T. D4R1U5 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this one is a bit more complicated, as we're talking about at least 4 devices (3, 3T, 5, 5T), and possibly more if they applied it to earlier devices as well (I don't believe that has been confirmed or denied). 72.139.70.6 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should list them on the 4 device pages and leave this page as it is. Do you agree D4R1U5? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: The IP has suggested some changes, after that we’ll see about those 4 other pages. D4R1U5 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that this should be covered in some way in this article, and not just be kept product specific? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely should be discussed here. It is now a long running corporate policy issue spanning at least four devices which has attracted substantial negative attention to the company. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source saying it is a corporate policy and not a device specific issue? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to clarify, you're asking for a source that this software change that OnePlus has enabled and disabled multiple times, with the fallout affecting at least 4 devices in their product line (as discussed in every source linked above) affected multiple devices? Also, I'm curious about your insistence on everything listed here being something that affected multiple devices. To my knowledge, there is no requirement that things that only affect one product (which this is not an example of) should not be listed on the company's product page. e.g. Samsung's Wikipedia page discusses the battery defect that affected one single device produced by their subsidiary, Samsung Electronics. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not asking for a source saying it affected multiple devices. You said It is now a long running corporate policy, but you have not provided any evidence for this. WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument unless as a result of consensus. With regards to Samsung though I am presuming you are referring to the section 2016 which literally has the maintenance tag saying "most of the section belongs to articles about specific companies Please help improve this section if you can." Your knowledge is correct but issues of due weight, relevance, and notability also need to kept in mind. Just because 4 independently notable devices by one company have had similar issues, doesn't mean we go to a higher level part of that hierarchy and claim it is a long running corporate policy without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: corporate policy: There seems to be a fundamental communications gap here on this idea. I'm going to need clarification from you on three things.
1. What do you think "a long running corporate policy issue spanning at least four devices" means? Please be specific, and clarify how you believe that differs from what we are seeing here. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Do you believe that issues affecting only one device have any bearing in a company's Wikipedia page? If not, then do you have a guideline (not a persuasive essay. a guideline) to support this claim that we need to restrict company pages in that way?72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. All the articles mentioned are quite explicit about how the implementation (and removal, and re-implementation, and re-removal) of the benchmark cheating code were decisions made by OnePlus, not random chance defects. The OnePlus 5 article in particular goes into detail about it. Are you looking for something different (e.g. a statement by OnePlus on why they created the benchmark cheating code and why they implemented and then removed it)? 72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Other Stuff Exists: I was not arguing that this should be here because other stuff is elsewhere. I was pointing out that your claims that device specific things (which again, this is not just one device, the issue has been an ongoing discussion across at least 4 devices) should only be in the device's article, not the company's article, don't really match up with general Wikipedia guidelines, and I was trying to figure out what guideline you were trying to follow with that claim.72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Samsung vs. Samsung Electronics vs. Note 7 articles: Yes, Jklamo made a major push to move things from Samsung into Samsung Electronics/Samsung Electro-Mechanics/Samsung SDI/etc. which they haven't really been joined in, but that information is still being prominently displayed in the sub-companies' articles. The equivalent here would be if OPPO's article or BBK's article was discussing OnePlus' benchmark cheating controversies. I'm especially curious about this as you've been pushing against including the announcement in the OnePlus 5T article as well...72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "issues of due weight, relevance, and notability also need to kept in mind." I believe we already addressed that up above, and you didn't dispute the answers and instead moved on to creating other issues. This controversy was a major news event with substantial coverage both online and in print. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Just because 4 independently notable devices by one company have had similar issues, doesn't mean we go to a higher level part of that hierarchy and claim it is a long running corporate policy without evidence.": This isn't some hardware defect that they all just happen to have... This is a software "feature" that OnePlus retroactively added to the 3 and 3T, removed from the 3 and 3T when the backlash happened, re-added to the 3 and 3T when it died down a bit, added to the 5 when it launched, and then removed from all three when the 5T launched. This is described in the sources linked above (as I have repeatedly mentioned). 72.139.70.6 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference a WP:wall of text is unlikely to be read. I think "a long running corporate policy issue spanning at least four device", means that the company of OnePlus has explicitly made a policy amongst the four devices to alter performance scaling in a way that is unrepresentative of day to day usage, and if such as thing had happened we would need a WP:RS to make such a WP:Verifiable claim. The fact that it has happened to four devices which is what has happened here, doesn't mean we can engage in WP:OR and say it was some policy. I think that issues affecting a single product or even multiple products can have a bearing on a company if they are WP:NOTEWORTHY. With regards to the OnePlus 5T I have not been pushing against it, I have just have to deal with handling your mess but that should be discussed on that article anyway. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Walls of text are hard to deal with. That's why I broke up your wall of text into smaller simpler questions to try to make it easier for you to respond to. Anyway, here goes. First off, thank you for confirming that there is no Wikipedia guideline stating that device specific issues should not appear on the company's page. Re: long running policy; if that's your only issue, then we're good to go, as that was never mentioned in the text proposed for the article. Re: WP:NOTEWORTHY; did you mean to link to a different Wikipedia guideline? WP:NOTEWORTHY is about how article content does not need to meet the same notability guidelines that articles need to meet... Re: last line; My mess? You kept blocking anyone's attempts to add this information both here (which is now so old[1] that it's in the archive [2]) and on the OnePlus 5T page, while repeatedly going in circles referring to Wikipedia guidelines that don't say what you're claiming that they say. Not everyone can spend as much time on Wikipedia as you do, and popping into the article every couple hours to revert any changes and obstruct only serves to stifle discussion.72.139.70.6 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: Pinging Emir. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@D4R1U5: You might be interested in this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Zimmerman, Steven (2017-01-31). "Benchmark Cheating Strikes Back: How OnePlus and Others Got Caught Red-Handed, and What They've Done About it". XDA Developers. Retrieved 2017-08-03.
  2. ^ "Benchmark for Good, Not Evil". Retrieved 2017-12-13.
  3. ^ Zimmerman, Steven (2016-09-06). "Geekbench CEO Fireside Chat pt.2: OEMs Cheating on Benchmarks, Custom Cores, and Honest Manufacturers". XDA Developers. Retrieved 2017-08-03.
  4. ^ Lal Shimpi, Anand; Klug, Brian (2013-10-02). "They're (Almost) All Dirty: The State of Cheating in Android Benchmarks". Anandtech. Retrieved 2017-08-03.
  5. ^ Serrafero, Mario (2017-06-20). "Do NOT Trust OnePlus 5 Benchmarks in Reviews - How OnePlus Cheated". XDA Developers. Retrieved 2017-06-25.
  6. ^ Zimmerman, Steven (2017-11-20). "DO Trust OnePlus 5T Benchmarks in Reviews". XDA Developers. Archived from the original on 2017-12-12. Retrieved 2017-12-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Unexplained uppercasing and renaming of OnePlus USB-C cable

[edit]
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The text was changed. This is not the place to accuse people of vandalism or to fight over its meaning.

User:Emir of Wikipedia changed "OnePlus USB-C cable" to "OnePlus Type-C Cable". Would he dare to explain

  • why "cable" uppercase
  • why "Type" instead of "USB"

? 80.171.251.255 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the capital letter you are correct, but the reliable sources call the cable USB Type-C not USB-C. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:USB-C it was agreed that the common name is "USB-C" not "USB Type-C". But you didn't even change it to "USB Type-C", but to "OnePlus Type-C" - the TLA "USB" does not even appear. Last but not least your claim is not even true for the cable issue:
80.171.251.255 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert, but don't accuse people of vandalism without knowing what that means here on Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Vandalism "editing [...] deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." - removal of "USB" /could/ be considered vandalism. Deliberately uppercasing too. Please take more care when reverting as you may re-insert errors and have to take full responsibility for it.
"Feel free to revert" - when you yourself already admitted that "Cable" is not correct, leaving the error on the page is exactly what? 92.227.40.212 (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to take these personal attacks. Closing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OnePlus 6

[edit]

I know there are rumors on the oneplus 6 such as leaks has there been any confirmation from OnePlus yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkekin (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Topkekin: A draft is at Draft:OnePlus 6. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OnePlus is not a parent of Oppo

[edit]

In the OnePlus "History" section: "Lau denied that OnePlus was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oppo and stated that Oppo Electronics and not Oppo Mobile (the phone manufacturer) is a major "investor" of OnePlus" Take a look at the name "investor". The Investment page on Wikipedia says that "In general, to invest is to "distribute money in the expectation of some benefit in the future"" that's why OnePlus is not owned by Oppo. Who agrees? PedroLucasDBr (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the WP:RSs. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy Issue

[edit]

On the german page you find remarks about a serious privacy issue - at last considered "serious" by european people. Cannot believe that Five Eyes - country citizens are really that desinterested about not only being naked for Google etc. but also naked for chinese systems? Maybe somebody wants to check it out and transform it to here. I have no interest at all buying, engaging with anything from/about OnePlus.

Wilhelm Müller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.64.245 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section Blanking by 219.73.12.202

[edit]

Hi 219.73.12.202, could you clarify why you blanked most of the history section on 6 June 2019‎? The edit comments don't seem to line up with the actual edits made. For example, in this edit you claim that "Neither of the sources says this. This is synthesis and synthesis is original research which is not allowed.", however both sources are talking about the potential for injuries and the optics of creating waste on Earth Day, as the sentence said. Could you clarify which part you felt was synthesis? 198.52.130.115 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a seperate list article about products

[edit]

The product section is flooded with different products by the brand , including smartphone , wearable , tv. For easy readability , creating a seperate list article and only keep necessary information in the product section of the main page. 007sak (talk) #time 007sak (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Interesting Geek (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OnePlus TVs

[edit]

The article has several paragraphs just on the TVs.
Since the new OnePlus TV U1S Series is also launched, better to make an article on OnePlus TVs separately.
If the decision is made and we decide to create a separate article, then I can create it since I've been following the recent TV launches from some brands.
Wanted to make this request before adding a new section for the OnePlus TV U1S.
Thanks YashPratap1912(CONT.) 01:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lock article further down.

[edit]

As phone debate often inspires heated arguments and brash behavior, the clearance level of this article and articles of other phone brands could be increased. Ned Retherbrick (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenline issue

[edit]

Am suffering from green liw issue ,I think more than 78 line now visible

Please try to understand and resolved this

Otherwise moving on hight 2406:8800:9014:63E3:384F:6E4F:43A3:7C48 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One plus 12

[edit]

iam using one plus 12 i like the phone but the reason is green line issues 💔 and motherboard dead issue and now i am selling this phone to buy Samsung s24 ultra 61.5.153.177 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OnePlus&oldid=1247042284"