4 ms·

I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by dr

I have no horse in this race whatsoever, but after watching the footage, the test is so insanely unrealistic. It's the equivalent of "test driving" a car by driving it off a cliff into the grand canyon and then when it hits the bottom and explodes complaining that it failed to "drive". Yeah, you're technically right, it did fail to drive, just like the phone did "explode", but neither situation is realistic in the slightest. I don't care whether other phones passed the same test or not, it's irrelevant. The test scenario is not one that I would ever subject my phone to.

bpye 1y ago
I think the point is that they had subjected every other foldable device to same torture test, and no other device went up in smoke.
- Random09 1y ago
  But the problem is that is not the same test. Unless he's a robot, he can't reproduce exact movement and strength used to bend other phones. He could use less or more strength based on how well he slept, how he was feeling day before or how much money he received from a company before the "test".
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    Seems suspicious that _no_ other device ignited.
conartist6 1y ago
on purpose
bcraven 1y ago
Fully agree. Watching that chap go ham on trying to destroy phones then give them some sort of reliability score always rubbed me the wrong way.
- estimator7292 1y ago
  Every other car he drove off the cliff just broke. Only this one exploded. That means something.
  - cma 1y ago
    I scrubbed through the video and didn't see any kind of discernible explosion.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  Car safety is tested fairly destructively.
gruez 1y ago
>just like the phone did "explode", Even that's a bit generous. At best I'd describe it as "caught on fire", but not what most people have in mind when you say something "exploded"
- spwa4 1y ago
  Problem with battery fires/explosions is that they are NOT fires. They don't go out if you douse them in water, they don't go out even if you starve them of oxygen, and they get hot enough to melt concrete and steel. They move in slow motion (thank God), but they're near unstoppable until burned out. So if you get a battery fire in your pants, it'll even be slow to heat up, but it'll burn right through your leg if you don't remove it. (or if you can't, because it melted right into your ...) Also the fumes are toxic and inhaling it will cause "sudden unconsciousness and death".
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    What is the battery-fire-at-home playbook? Cover it in sand?
    - spwa4 1y ago
      If you have a chemical fire at home, first GET OUT OF THERE. Don't do anything. Except perhaps rapidly throw off a piece of clothing that got into contact or has melted into the fire. If you absolutely must (don't), open the windows (ideally from the outside, with a rock), ideally at least 2 of them, and get out of there. It's thousands of degrees, so water will make it explode, as will any liquid that can rapidly vaporize. Water will also spread the toxic fumes 10.000x faster than they were spreading before you added water. The water in the air or water that's somehow gotten near the battery might be enough to make it explode if it's badly engineered, so treat it like it might explode or start sputtering 2000 degree droplets at any time without warning (potentially into your eyes). Don't try to cover it. There's no use. It doesn't need oxygen, so it won't be put out, and just about anything ignites above 400-500 degrees, so you'll just create new sources of toxic fumes. Frankly in that youtube movie that initial venting from the battery had gone near his body, we'd be talking weeks in the hospital. If it had gone into his face the video would have suddenly gone silent. That was incredibly irresponsible.
jajuuka 1y ago
I'm more curious if Google will respond to this at all. Regardless of how unrealistic the "test" is it still affects public perception of Google phones. I think the funniest part is Fortune calls him a "durability expert". He just started a youtube channel and tried to break phones.
- pjjpo 1y ago
  Personally I find the $1800 sticker shock must be affecting public perception much more than durability issues. Or put another way, I suspect the people that buy this are buying a $1800 phone every year anyways and don't need to worry about durability - if it happened to break mid-year can always buy another one.
  - jajuuka 1y ago
    That's why I haven't dipped into foldables. Long term ownership seems like such a gamble. The risks are getting lower but still not at a level I think justifies spending that much at once or over a couple years.

bpye 1y ago

I think the point is that they had subjected every other foldable device to same torture test, and no other device went up in smoke.

Random09 1y ago
But the problem is that is not the same test. Unless he's a robot, he can't reproduce exact movement and strength used to bend other phones. He could use less or more strength based on how well he slept, how he was feeling day before or how much money he received from a company before the "test".
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  Seems suspicious that _no_ other device ignited.

conartist6 1y ago

on purpose

bcraven 1y ago

Fully agree. Watching that chap go ham on trying to destroy phones then give them some sort of reliability score always rubbed me the wrong way.

estimator7292 1y ago
Every other car he drove off the cliff just broke. Only this one exploded. That means something.
- cma 1y ago
  I scrubbed through the video and didn't see any kind of discernible explosion.
maxerickson 1y ago
Car safety is tested fairly destructively.

gruez 1y ago

>just like the phone did "explode", Even that's a bit generous. At best I'd describe it as "caught on fire", but not what most people have in mind when you say something "exploded"

spwa4 1y ago
Problem with battery fires/explosions is that they are NOT fires. They don't go out if you douse them in water, they don't go out even if you starve them of oxygen, and they get hot enough to melt concrete and steel. They move in slow motion (thank God), but they're near unstoppable until burned out. So if you get a battery fire in your pants, it'll even be slow to heat up, but it'll burn right through your leg if you don't remove it. (or if you can't, because it melted right into your ...) Also the fumes are toxic and inhaling it will cause "sudden unconsciousness and death".
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  What is the battery-fire-at-home playbook? Cover it in sand?
  - spwa4 1y ago
    If you have a chemical fire at home, first GET OUT OF THERE. Don't do anything. Except perhaps rapidly throw off a piece of clothing that got into contact or has melted into the fire. If you absolutely must (don't), open the windows (ideally from the outside, with a rock), ideally at least 2 of them, and get out of there. It's thousands of degrees, so water will make it explode, as will any liquid that can rapidly vaporize. Water will also spread the toxic fumes 10.000x faster than they were spreading before you added water. The water in the air or water that's somehow gotten near the battery might be enough to make it explode if it's badly engineered, so treat it like it might explode or start sputtering 2000 degree droplets at any time without warning (potentially into your eyes). Don't try to cover it. There's no use. It doesn't need oxygen, so it won't be put out, and just about anything ignites above 400-500 degrees, so you'll just create new sources of toxic fumes. Frankly in that youtube movie that initial venting from the battery had gone near his body, we'd be talking weeks in the hospital. If it had gone into his face the video would have suddenly gone silent. That was incredibly irresponsible.

jajuuka 1y ago

I'm more curious if Google will respond to this at all. Regardless of how unrealistic the "test" is it still affects public perception of Google phones. I think the funniest part is Fortune calls him a "durability expert". He just started a youtube channel and tried to break phones.

pjjpo 1y ago
Personally I find the $1800 sticker shock must be affecting public perception much more than durability issues. Or put another way, I suspect the people that buy this are buying a $1800 phone every year anyways and don't need to worry about durability - if it happened to break mid-year can always buy another one.
- jajuuka 1y ago
  That's why I haven't dipped into foldables. Long term ownership seems like such a gamble. The risks are getting lower but still not at a level I think justifies spending that much at once or over a couple years.