Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the future of Facebook be trusted

The last couple of years have been pretty tough for Facebook. The social network was at the center of scandals related to leaks of personal data of its users, and trolls and fake news influenced elections. Well, Mark Zuckerberg was even summoned to a meeting in Congress, where he tried to explain to lawmakers who did not understand how the Internet works and that if you post something online, then be prepared for the fact that it will become the property of third parties.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

On March 6, Zuckerberg realized that it was impossible to live like this any longer, and published a voluminous text in which he described his vision for the development of social networks. The text can be found here. The material looks more like an attempt to leave all the failures behind and start from scratch, as now Facebook is heavily discredited and does not meet the requirements of the time, as evidenced by the decrease in the number of active users.

In connection with the last point, the question arises, what about Russia, which, in addition to violating the rights of its citizens, also wants foreign companies to set up servers on the territory of the Russian Federation.

At the moment, Roskomnadzor has claims against the social network, to which it does not respond. And it is not clear how the conflict will develop.

However, back in 2014, Facebook began to cooperate with the Tor network and even got a permanent address on the so-called dark web - https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/ (available only through the Tor browser).

This address has the advantage that in this case data is exchanged directly with the Facebook data center.

DxOMark Ranking

Introduction

It's funny that our brain, theoretically responsible for the process of thinking and making choices, most of all just does not like to think and choose. The surrounding chaos makes the brain panic and try with all its might to either kick back, or at least somehow streamline it. And the process of choosing even more so drives the brain into depression.

And that is why humanity seeks to streamline and rank everything that surrounds it - the investment attractiveness of the regions, the best countries for recreation, the best banks, the most beautiful girls and men, the best cars and phones. Ratings are very popular because they are a kind of attempt to protect against chaos.

One of the ratings around which there is a lot of controversy is DxOMark. Smartphones are coming out innumerable, and DxOMark Image Labs is acting as a beacon of sorts. The company has established standards and methods by which it gives out a given number of points, bringing order to the chaotic world of phone photography. Thanks to DxOMark, for example, the consumer knows that the Huawei P20 shoots better than the Samsung Galaxy S9+.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

However, DxOMark, like any rating, wants to ask a question, how objective are the results. Every time the question of photo evaluation is raised in a work chat, it immediately arrives that DxOMark are corrupt and almost directly shamelessly trade in places. Let's try to figure out how fair such judgments are.

What does DxOMark Image Labs do and how does it make money?

For starters, a few words about the company itself. DxOMark Image Labs is a company founded in 2003 and headquartered in Paris, specializing in hardware and software for image quality assessment. Initially, DxOMark Image Labs was engaged in DSLR and DSC, but in 2008, in addition to “DSLRs”, they began to evaluate cameras in smartphones, and the DxOMark benchmark appeared. There were no other equally significant ratings for evaluating the photo capabilities of smartphones, so it is not surprising that DxOMark has become a kind of standard. All manufacturers strive to get high scores in this rating. Especially those who don't have a strong brand and want to establish themselves.

DxOMark Image Labs makes money by selling a specialized gadget for evaluating image quality - Analyzer 7.

They also offer consulting services. In fact, DxOMark sells a kind of instruction on how to make the best possible camera (that is, they can determine goals and objectives, outline key points and KPIs, company engineers will help solve emerging problems, etc.).

However, the DxOMark rating is such a seductive source of income that it would be a sin not to use it. Let's think about how exactly a company can "honestly" earn.

The answer is simple and banal - buying consulting. In fact, the DxOMark rating is the exam, where the smartphone camera performs test tasks. Accordingly, as in the case of the USE, DxOMark acts as a tutor who can explain the specifics of grades and what is being paid attention to.

The second option, how you can influence the rating, is a half-truth. You may remember how, at the end of October last year, the news broke that the Huawei Mate 20 Pro scored an “insane” score and Huawei decided not to include it in the ranking. Noise from this news was! On January 18, 2019, the Mate 20 Pro appeared in the ranking, sharing the first place with the P20 Pro and receiving the same result - 109 points. In this case, we see a purely marketing story. Initially, Huawei supported sales of the P20 Pro, and a couple of months before the announcement of the new version of the P30 Pro, the Mate 20 Pro took the first place. I would venture to suggest that also, 2-3 months before the release of the next model (Mate 30 Pro), it will be replaced by P30 Pro.

And from a formal point of view, there are no questions for DxOMark, since all communication with the world was conducted by Huawei. However, silence is better than any words. Firstly, if the results (that both the P20 Pro and the Mate 20 Pro scored the same number) were known back in October, then why did the independent company DxOMark remain silent, since the question directly concerned their tests? Correct answer: because it was profitable for Huawei, and DxOMark themselves are probably unmercenaries. But the main takeaway from this story is that users only see what they are shown.

Another example of a direct example of fact manipulation is the same rating of Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 and Samsung Galaxy Note 9. Both phones received 103 points.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

And if you look at these two shots, it may seem that Mi Mix3 (left) shoots much better than Note 9 (right).

The strange thing is that these photos were taken in different conditions. Taken on Galaxy Note 9 on July 31 at 12:32 (zenith of the sun on this day 12:58, sunset 20:34). And on Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - October 4 at 15:12 (zenith at 12:40, sunset 18:28). Accordingly, it turns out a situation where, in the case of Galaxy Note 9, the light from the side hits the lens, while for Mi Mix 3, the setting sun does not interfere. And there is no need to talk about how the right light affects the final quality of the pictures. And you can still collect such small tricks. After all, DxOMark is not an application, and all photos are taken manually. DxOMark claims that they take about 1,500 test shots and shoot more than two hours of video during the test of each smartphone, and only the most noteworthy photos are taken out in brief reviews. Therefore, in theory, DxOMark can say that the measurements were taken from other, more relevant photos, and this is given as an example. In any case, there is a lot of room for maneuver, and you understand the logic.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, I can say that I am still convinced that DxOMark does not directly trade ratings, since there are much more elegant tricks for this, which are also practically unprovable, so everything stated above is just my subjective an opinion that does not claim to be true.

You should not blindly trust any ratings, just as you should not trust published 1-3 Month Female Purebred Persian test photos, as they are selected carefully and carefully.

However, whatever one may say, DxOMark is a benchmark in assessing the quality of a photo, which makes it clear at what level photo flagships are at a given time.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the future of Facebook be trusted

The last couple of years have been pretty tough for Facebook. The social network was at the center of scandals related to leaks of personal data of its users, and trolls and fake news influenced elections. Well, Mark Zuckerberg was even summoned to a meeting in Congress, where he tried to explain to lawmakers who did not understand how the Internet works and that if you post something online, then be prepared for the fact that it will become the property of third parties.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

On March 6, Zuckerberg realized that it was impossible to live like this any longer, and published a voluminous text in which he described his vision for the development of social networks. The text can be found here. The material looks more like an attempt to leave all the failures behind and start from scratch, as now Facebook is heavily discredited and does not meet the requirements of the time, as evidenced by the decrease in the number of active users.

I will briefly list interesting places from Zuckerberg's article:

  • People are tired of openness and want more privacy, so messengers and platforms that allow you to communicate in groups are a trend that will continue to develop.
  • According to Zuckerberg, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp will become the main communication channels on Facebook. In this case, it means that, for example, when discussing a certain topic, outsiders who were not called, but they just passed by, will not be able to come to it.
  • Company will focus on things like end-to-end encryption, stop keeping message history longer than required. As an example, it is given that someone may have photographs published some time ago, which now may seem shameful to them. As you understand, in this case we are talking about the favorite fun of users to look for old tweets or photos and pull them out into the light at the most inconvenient moment.
  • Now each social network - Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp - has its own communication channel. In the future, Zuckerberg wants to merge everything into one application, allowing him to communicate with everyone.
  • Important point: Facebook will not share information about users in countries where human rights are violated.

In connection with the last point, the question arises, what about Russia, which, in addition to violating the rights of its citizens, also wants foreign companies to set up servers on the territory of the Russian Federation.

At the moment, Roskomnadzor has claims against the social network, to which it does not respond. And it is not clear how the conflict will develop.

However, back in 2014, Facebook began to cooperate with the Tor network and even got a permanent address on the so-called dark web - https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/ (available only through the Tor browser).

This address has the advantage that in this case data is exchanged directly with the Facebook data center.

DxOMark Ranking

Introduction

It's funny that our brain, theoretically responsible for the process of thinking and making choices, most of all just does not like to think and choose. The surrounding chaos makes the brain panic and try with all its might to either kick back, or at least somehow streamline it. And the process of choosing even more so drives the brain into depression.

What does DxOMark Image Labs do and how does it make money?

For starters, a few words about the company itself. DxOMark Image Labs is a company founded in 2003 and headquartered in Paris, specializing in hardware and software for image quality assessment. Initially, DxOMark Image Labs was engaged in DSLR and DSC, but in 2008, in addition to “DSLRs”, they began to evaluate cameras in smartphones, and the DxOMark benchmark appeared. There were no other equally significant ratings for evaluating the photo capabilities of smartphones, so it is not surprising that DxOMark has become a kind of standard. All manufacturers strive to get high scores in this rating. Especially those who don't have a strong brand and want to establish themselves.

DxOMark Image Labs makes money by selling a specialized gadget for evaluating image quality - Analyzer 7.

They also offer consulting services. In fact, DxOMark sells a kind of instruction on how to make the best possible camera (that is, they can determine goals and objectives, outline key points and KPIs, company engineers will help solve emerging problems, etc.).

DxOMark - are the creatures corrupt or have the right?

I suppose this is exactly how Raskolnikov would think if he were asked to evaluate the activities of DxOMark. You can read about the DxOMark testing method here.

So, the company has been on the market since 2003, and since 2008 it has also been evaluating smartphones. Sells a set of hardware and software, as well as consulting, that is, advice. In this scenario, it turns out that the most important asset of the company is the purity of its reputation. And it is clear that DxOMark is following this very carefully, since neither in the specialized press nor on the forums do stories emerge about the company's corruption and uncleanliness. And this is strange, since high-profile revelations of ratings occur regularly. Suffice it to recall the scandals with the cheerful trinity of Standard & Poor's, Fitch and Moody's, which assesses the reliability and investment attractiveness of countries and companies. However, the Big Three rating companies can afford to play pranks with rating trading, as their high status is enshrined in law both in the US and in Europe. Accordingly, they can be reprimanded, fined, but they have been and will remain NRSRO (nationally recognized statistical rating organization). If DxOMark is caught on this, then it will be almost impossible to wash off the reputational blow, therefore, in my opinion, the assertion that DxOMark trades places in the rating for the cache does not stand up to scrutiny. Too risky and illogical.

However, the DxOMark rating is such a seductive source of income that it would be a sin not to use it. Let's think about how exactly a company can "honestly" earn.

The answer is simple and banal - buying consulting. In fact, the DxOMark rating is the exam, where the smartphone camera performs test tasks. Accordingly, as in the case of the USE, DxOMark acts as a tutor who can explain the specifics of grades and what is being paid attention to.

The second option, how you can influence the rating, is a half-truth. You may remember how, at the end of October last year, the news broke that the Huawei Mate 20 Pro scored an “insane” score and Huawei decided not to include it in the ranking. Noise from this news was! On January 18, 2019, the Mate 20 Pro appeared in the ranking, sharing the first place with the P20 Pro and receiving the same result - 109 points. In this case, we see a purely marketing story. Initially, Huawei supported sales of the P20 Pro, and a couple of months before the announcement of the new version of the P30 Pro, the Mate 20 Pro took the first place. I would venture to suggest that also, 2-3 months before the release of the next model (Mate 30 Pro), it will be replaced by P30 Pro.

And from a formal point of view, there are no questions for DxOMark, since all communication with the world was conducted by Huawei. However, silence is better than any words. Firstly, if the results (that both the P20 Pro and the Mate 20 Pro scored the same number) were known back in October, then why did the independent company DxOMark remain silent, since the question directly concerned their tests? Correct answer: because it was profitable for Huawei, and DxOMark themselves are probably unmercenaries. But the main takeaway from this story is that users only see what they are shown.

Another example of a direct example of fact manipulation is the same rating of Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 and Samsung Galaxy Note 9. Both phones received 103 points.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

And if you look at these two shots, it may seem that Mi Mix3 (left) shoots much better than Note 9 (right).

The strange thing is that these photos were taken in different conditions. Taken on Galaxy Note 9 on July 31 at 12:32 (zenith of the sun on this day 12:58, sunset 20:34). And on Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - October 4 at 15:12 (zenith at 12:40, sunset 18:28). Accordingly, it turns out a situation where, in the case of Galaxy Note 9, the light from the side hits the lens, while for Mi Mix 3, the setting sun does not interfere. And there is no need to talk about how the right light affects the final quality of the pictures. And you can still collect such small tricks. After all, DxOMark is not an application, and all photos are taken manually. DxOMark claims that they take about 1,500 test shots and shoot more than two hours of video during the test of each smartphone, and only the most noteworthy photos are taken out in brief reviews. Therefore, in theory, DxOMark can say that the measurements were taken from other, more relevant photos, and this is given as an example. In any case, there is a lot of room for maneuver, and you understand the logic.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, I can say that I am still convinced that DxOMark does not directly trade ratings, since there are much more elegant tricks for this, which are also practically unprovable, so everything stated above is just my subjective an opinion that does not claim to be true.

You should not blindly trust any ratings, just as you should not trust published 1-3 Month Female Purebred Persian test photos, as they are selected carefully and carefully.

However, whatever one may say, DxOMark is a benchmark in assessing the quality of a photo, which makes it clear at what level photo flagships are at a given time.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the future of Facebook be trusted

The last couple of years have been pretty tough for Facebook. The social network was at the center of scandals related to leaks of personal data of its users, and trolls and fake news influenced elections. Well, Mark Zuckerberg was even summoned to a meeting in Congress, where he tried to explain to lawmakers who did not understand how the Internet works and that if you post something online, then be prepared for the fact that it will become the property of third parties.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

On March 6, Zuckerberg realized that it was impossible to live like this any longer, and published a voluminous text in which he described his vision for the development of social networks. The text can be found here. The material looks more like an attempt to leave all the failures behind and start from scratch, as now Facebook is heavily discredited and does not meet the requirements of the time, as evidenced by the decrease in the number of active users.

I will briefly list interesting places from Zuckerberg's article:

  • People are tired of openness and want more privacy, so messengers and platforms that allow you to communicate in groups are a trend that will continue to develop.
  • According to Zuckerberg, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp will become the main communication channels on Facebook. In this case, it means that, for example, when discussing a certain topic, outsiders who were not called, but they just passed by, will not be able to come to it.
  • Company will focus on things like end-to-end encryption, stop keeping message history longer than required. As an example, it is given that someone may have photographs published some time ago, which now may seem shameful to them. As you understand, in this case we are talking about the favorite fun of users to look for old tweets or photos and pull them out into the light at the most inconvenient moment.
  • Now each social network - Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp - has its own communication channel. In the future, Zuckerberg wants to merge everything into one application, allowing him to communicate with everyone.
  • Important point: Facebook will not share information about users in countries where human rights are violated.

In connection with the last point, the question arises, what about Russia, which, in addition to violating the rights of its citizens, also wants foreign companies to set up servers on the territory of the Russian Federation.

At the moment, Roskomnadzor has claims against the social network, to which it does not respond. And it is not clear how the conflict will develop.

However, back in 2014, Facebook began to cooperate with the Tor network and even got a permanent address on the so-called dark web - https://facebookcorewwwi.onion/ (available only through the Tor browser).

This address has the advantage that in this case data is exchanged directly with the Facebook data center.

DxOMark Ranking

Introduction

It's funny that our brain, theoretically responsible for the process of thinking and making choices, most of all just does not like to think and choose. The surrounding chaos makes the brain panic and try with all its might to either kick back, or at least somehow streamline it. And the process of choosing even more so drives the brain into depression.

And that is why humanity seeks to streamline and rank everything that surrounds it - the investment attractiveness of the regions, the best countries for recreation, the best banks, the most beautiful girls and men, the best cars and phones. Ratings are very popular because they are a kind of attempt to protect against chaos.

One of the ratings around which there is a lot of controversy is DxOMark. Smartphones are coming out innumerable, and DxOMark Image Labs is acting as a beacon of sorts. The company has established standards and methods by which it gives out a given number of points, bringing order to the chaotic world of phone photography. Thanks to DxOMark, for example, the consumer knows that the Huawei P20 shoots better than the Samsung Galaxy S9+.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

However, DxOMark, like any rating, wants to ask a question, how objective are the results. Every time the question of photo evaluation is raised in a work chat, it immediately arrives that DxOMark are corrupt and almost directly shamelessly trade in places. Let's try to figure out how fair such judgments are.

What does DxOMark Image Labs do and how does it make money?

For starters, a few words about the company itself. DxOMark Image Labs is a company founded in 2003 and headquartered in Paris, specializing in hardware and software for image quality assessment. Initially, DxOMark Image Labs was engaged in DSLR and DSC, but in 2008, in addition to “DSLRs”, they began to evaluate cameras in smartphones, and the DxOMark benchmark appeared. There were no other equally significant ratings for evaluating the photo capabilities of smartphones, so it is not surprising that DxOMark has become a kind of standard. All manufacturers strive to get high scores in this rating. Especially those who don't have a strong brand and want to establish themselves.

DxOMark Image Labs makes money by selling a specialized gadget for evaluating image quality - Analyzer 7.

They also offer consulting services. In fact, DxOMark sells a kind of instruction on how to make the best possible camera (that is, they can determine goals and objectives, outline key points and KPIs, company engineers will help solve emerging problems, etc.).

DxOMark - are the creatures corrupt or have the right?

I suppose this is exactly how Raskolnikov would think if he were asked to evaluate the activities of DxOMark. You can read about the DxOMark testing method here.

So, the company has been on the market since 2003, and since 2008 it has also been evaluating smartphones. Sells a set of hardware and software, as well as consulting, that is, advice. In this scenario, it turns out that the most important asset of the company is the purity of its reputation. And it is clear that DxOMark is following this very carefully, since neither in the specialized press nor on the forums do stories emerge about the company's corruption and uncleanliness. And this is strange, since high-profile revelations of ratings occur regularly. Suffice it to recall the scandals with the cheerful trinity of Standard & Poor's, Fitch and Moody's, which assesses the reliability and investment attractiveness of countries and companies. However, the Big Three rating companies can afford to play pranks with rating trading, as their high status is enshrined in law both in the US and in Europe. Accordingly, they can be reprimanded, fined, but they have been and will remain NRSRO (nationally recognized statistical rating organization). If DxOMark is caught on this, then it will be almost impossible to wash off the reputational blow, therefore, in my opinion, the assertion that DxOMark trades places in the rating for the cache does not stand up to scrutiny. Too risky and illogical.

However, the DxOMark rating is such a seductive source of income that it would be a sin not to use it. Let's think about how exactly a company can "honestly" earn.

The answer is simple and banal - buying consulting. In fact, the DxOMark rating is the exam, where the smartphone camera performs test tasks. Accordingly, as in the case of the USE, DxOMark acts as a tutor who can explain the specifics of grades and what is being paid attention to.

The second option, how you can influence the rating, is a half-truth. You may remember how, at the end of October last year, the news broke that the Huawei Mate 20 Pro scored an “insane” score and Huawei decided not to include it in the ranking. Noise from this news was! On January 18, 2019, the Mate 20 Pro appeared in the ranking, sharing the first place with the P20 Pro and receiving the same result - 109 points. In this case, we see a purely marketing story. Initially, Huawei supported sales of the P20 Pro, and a couple of months before the announcement of the new version of the P30 Pro, the Mate 20 Pro took the first place. I would venture to suggest that also, 2-3 months before the release of the next model (Mate 30 Pro), it will be replaced by P30 Pro.

And from a formal point of view, there are no questions for DxOMark, since all communication with the world was conducted by Huawei. However, silence is better than any words. Firstly, if the results (that both the P20 Pro and the Mate 20 Pro scored the same number) were known back in October, then why did the independent company DxOMark remain silent, since the question directly concerned their tests? Correct answer: because it was profitable for Huawei, and DxOMark themselves are probably unmercenaries. But the main takeaway from this story is that users only see what they are shown.

Another example of a direct example of fact manipulation is the same rating of Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 and Samsung Galaxy Note 9. Both phones received 103 points.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the Future of Facebook Be Trusted

And if you look at these two shots, it may seem that Mi Mix3 (left) shoots much better than Note 9 (right).

The strange thing is that these photos were taken in different conditions. Taken on Galaxy Note 9 on July 31 at 12:32 (zenith of the sun on this day 12:58, sunset 20:34). And on Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - October 4 at 15:12 (zenith at 12:40, sunset 18:28). Accordingly, it turns out a situation where, in the case of Galaxy Note 9, the light from the side hits the lens, while for Mi Mix 3, the setting sun does not interfere. And there is no need to talk about how the right light affects the final quality of the pictures. And you can still collect such small tricks. After all, DxOMark is not an application, and all photos are taken manually. DxOMark claims that they take about 1,500 test shots and shoot more than two hours of video during the test of each smartphone, and only the most noteworthy photos are taken out in brief reviews. Therefore, in theory, DxOMark can say that the measurements were taken from other, more relevant photos, and this is given as an example. In any case, there is a lot of room for maneuver, and you understand the logic.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, I can say that I am still convinced that DxOMark does not directly trade ratings, since there are much more elegant tricks for this, which are also practically unprovable, so everything stated above is just my subjective an opinion that does not claim to be true.

You should not blindly trust any ratings, just as you should not trust published 1-3 Month Female Purebred Persian test photos, as they are selected carefully and carefully.

However, whatever one may say, DxOMark is a benchmark in assessing the quality of a photo, which makes it clear at what level photo flagships are at a given time.

Echo #10: Can DxOMark and the future of Facebook be trusted

The last couple of years have been pretty tough for Facebook. The social network was at the center of scandals related to leaks of personal data of its users, and trolls and fake news influenced elections. Well, Mark Zuckerberg was even summoned to a meeting in Congress, where he tried to explain to lawmakers who did not understand how the Internet works and that if you post something online, then be prepared for the fact that it will become the property of third parties.

On March 6, Zuckerberg realized that it was impossible to live like this any longer, and published a voluminous text in which he described his vision for the development of social networks. The text can be found here. The material looks more like an attempt to leave all the failures behind and start from scratch, as now Facebook is heavily discredited and does not meet the requirements of the time, as evidenced by the decrease in the number of active users.

I will briefly list interesting places from Zuckerberg's article:

  • People are tired of openness and want more privacy, so messengers and platforms that allow you to communicate in groups are a trend that will continue to develop.
  • According to Zuckerberg, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp will become the main communication channels on Facebook. In this case, it means that, for example, when discussing a certain topic, outsiders who were not called, but they just passed by, will not be able to come to it.
  • Company will focus on things like end-to-end encryption, stop keeping message history longer than required. As an example, it is given that someone may have photographs published some time ago, which now may seem shameful to them. As you understand, in this case we are talking about the favorite fun of users to look for old tweets or photos and pull them out into the light at the most inconvenient moment.
  • Now each social network - Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp - has its own communication channel. In the future, Zuckerberg wants to merge everything into one application, allowing him to communicate with everyone.
  • Important point: Facebook will not share information about users in countries where human rights are violated.

And that is why humanity seeks to streamline and rank everything that surrounds it - the investment attractiveness of the regions, the best countries for recreation, the best banks, the most beautiful girls and men, the best cars and phones. Ratings are very popular because they are a kind of attempt to protect against chaos.

One of the ratings around which there is a lot of controversy is DxOMark. Smartphones are coming out innumerable, and DxOMark Image Labs is acting as a beacon of sorts. The company has established standards and methods by which it gives out a given number of points, bringing order to the chaotic world of phone photography. Thanks to DxOMark, for example, the consumer knows that the Huawei P20 shoots better than the Samsung Galaxy S9+.

However, DxOMark, like any rating, wants to ask a question, how objective are the results. Every time the question of photo evaluation is raised in a work chat, it immediately arrives that DxOMark are corrupt and almost directly shamelessly trade in places. Let's try to figure out how fair such judgments are.

What does DxOMark Image Labs do and how does it make money?

For starters, a few words about the company itself. DxOMark Image Labs is a company founded in 2003 and headquartered in Paris, specializing in hardware and software for image quality assessment. Initially, DxOMark Image Labs was engaged in DSLR and DSC, but in 2008, in addition to “DSLRs”, they began to evaluate cameras in smartphones, and the DxOMark benchmark appeared. There were no other equally significant ratings for evaluating the photo capabilities of smartphones, so it is not surprising that DxOMark has become a kind of standard. All manufacturers strive to get high scores in this rating. Especially those who don't have a strong brand and want to establish themselves.

DxOMark Image Labs makes money by selling a specialized gadget for evaluating image quality - Analyzer 7.

They also offer consulting services. In fact, DxOMark sells a kind of instruction on how to make the best possible camera (that is, they can determine goals and objectives, outline key points and KPIs, company engineers will help solve emerging problems, etc.).

DxOMark - are the creatures for sale or have the right?

I suppose this is exactly how Raskolnikov would think if he were asked to evaluate the activities of DxOMark. You can read about the DxOMark testing method here.

So, the company has been on the market since 2003, and since 2008 it has also been evaluating smartphones. Sells a set of hardware and software, as well as consulting, that is, advice. In this scenario, it turns out that the most important asset of the company is the purity of its reputation. And it is clear that DxOMark is following this very carefully, since neither in the specialized press nor on the forums do stories emerge about the company's corruption and uncleanliness. And this is strange, since high-profile revelations of ratings occur regularly. Suffice it to recall the scandals with the cheerful trinity of Standard & Poor's, Fitch and Moody's, which assesses the reliability and investment attractiveness of countries and companies. However, the Big Three rating companies can afford to play pranks with rating trading, as their high status is enshrined in law both in the US and in Europe. Accordingly, they can be reprimanded, fined, but they have been and will remain NRSRO (nationally recognized statistical rating organization). If DxOMark is caught on this, then it will be almost impossible to wash off the reputational blow, therefore, in my opinion, the assertion that DxOMark trades places in the rating for the cache does not stand up to scrutiny. Too risky and illogical.

And from a formal point of view, there are no questions for DxOMark, since all communication with the world was conducted by Huawei. However, silence is better than any words. Firstly, if the results (that both the P20 Pro and the Mate 20 Pro scored the same number) were known back in October, then why did the independent company DxOMark remain silent, since the question directly concerned their tests? Correct answer: because it was profitable for Huawei, and DxOMark themselves are probably unmercenaries. But the main takeaway from this story is that users only see what they are shown.

Another example of a direct example of fact manipulation is the same rating of Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 and Samsung Galaxy Note 9. Both phones received 103 points.

And if you look at these two shots, it may seem that Mi Mix3 (left) shoots much better than Note 9 (right).

The strange thing is that these photos were taken in different conditions. Taken on Galaxy Note 9 on July 31 at 12:32 (zenith of the sun on this day 12:58, sunset 20:34). And on Xiaomi Mi Mix 3 - October 4 at 15:12 (zenith at 12:40, sunset 18:28). Accordingly, it turns out a situation where, in the case of Galaxy Note 9, the light from the side hits the lens, while for Mi Mix 3, the setting sun does not interfere. And there is no need to talk about how the right light affects the final quality of the pictures. And you can still collect such small tricks. After all, DxOMark is not an application, and all photos are taken manually. DxOMark claims that they take about 1,500 test shots and shoot more than two hours of video during the test of each smartphone, and only the most noteworthy photos are taken out in brief reviews. Therefore, in theory, DxOMark can say that the measurements were taken from other, more relevant photos, and this is given as an example. In any case, there is a lot of room for maneuver, and you understand the logic.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, I can say that I am still convinced that DxOMark does not directly trade ratings, since there are much more elegant tricks for this, which are also practically unprovable, so everything stated above is just my subjective an opinion that does not claim to be true.

You should not blindly trust any ratings, just as you should not trust the test photos published by 1-3 Month Female Purebred Persian, as they are selected carefully and carefully.

You should not blindly trust any ratings, just as you should not trust the published 1-3 Month Female Purebred Persian 1-3 Month Female Purebred Persian test photographs, as they are selected carefully and carefully.

However, whatever one may say, DxOMark is a benchmark in assessing the quality of a photo, which makes it clear at what level photo flagships are at a given time.