Core Viewpoint - The criticism surrounding Lei Jun's claim of "300,000 hours of smartphone testing" is based on a misunderstanding of the concept, as many individuals fail to grasp the professional standards and the simultaneous nature of testing processes [1][2][4]. Group 1: Misunderstanding of Testing Claims - Critics have misinterpreted the "300,000 hours" figure, equating it to an unrealistic timeframe of 34 years, despite Xiaomi's establishment being only 15 years ago [2]. - The argument presented by critics relies on simplistic arithmetic without understanding the context of simultaneous testing across multiple devices [1][4]. Group 2: Industry Standards and Communication - The "300,000 hours of testing" is described as an industry standard, where thousands of testing devices simulate usage scenarios over several months, accumulating total testing hours [3]. - The current internet environment allows individuals to access information beyond their knowledge base, which may lead to misunderstandings of specialized concepts that are not covered in basic education [3][4]. Group 3: Marketing and Public Perception - There is speculation that the criticism may be driven by marketing motives, aiming to create confusion and influence perceptions in lower-tier markets [1][4]. - The phenomenon of viral misinformation reflects a broader issue in consumer behavior, where absurd marketing tactics can yield significant sales despite lacking logical foundations [4].