5 ms·

First off, their own results show that the 6 series is considerable weaker than the 5 series. Secondly, they applied that force for 30 seconds and got signific

First off, their own results show that the 6 series is considerable weaker than the 5 series. Secondly, they applied that force for 30 seconds and got significant deformation. I'm fairly sure that, given more time, they'd reach the less significant deformation reported and shown by others, with less force.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
Your second point is a valid good one to at least consider. However just playing devil's advocate: 9 returns to Apple (assuming that figure is true) is absolutely trivial relative to the units shipped. I think it will be interesting to see where we stand in 6 months time. Will we see tons more phones return?
- mwfunk 12y ago
  That's really the only meaningful question here. It doesn't matter if it's quantifiably more likely to bend, what matters is if that results in enough phones getting damaged in normal usage to be an actual issue for people. No one will know that for a while. Non-ECC memory is more likely to get corrupted than ECC memory, but that doesn't mean that every single person who uses a computing device should be using ECC memory. Just because one thing is quantifiably less robust than something else is meaningless without a concept of "how robust does it need to be?" Obviously the company thinks the phones have sufficient tolerances. A few people on the Internet have posted firsthand accounts that they think proves that the phones are inadequate. A much larger group of people on the Internet who don't like the company that makes the phones practically salivate over these sorts of events, and have been making sure that absolutely everyone who reads any tech forums is HIGHLY AWARE that this is a very important thing that we should all know and care about very, very deeply. Journalists of course will write about this stuff because many of them interpret their job as writing about whatever people are talking about. Which brings us to the present, in which the only truth that anyone can point to is: no one actually knows if this is actually a problem or not. The only way to answer that question is to wait and see how many returns there are due to breakage. For people who care about truth, well, that's the truth, boring as it may be. In a few months we'll find out if a big company might make less money because somebody should've used a bigger number on a spreadsheet. Exciting! On the other hand, for people who care about arguing about things on the Internet, well, to hell with them, honestly.
idlewords 12y ago
The results show that the 6 series is similar in strength to phones of that size from other manufacturers. It stands to reason that a smaller, thicker phone like the iPhone 5 will be more rigid (though it's interesting that it's easier to deform a 6 than a 6+).
- bane 12y ago
  No, the results show that there's as much as a 50% difference in the results between top and bottom. That's a huge difference in structural terms.
  - idlewords 12y ago
    Yeah, some of the phones in the test are quite hard to bend, and some are extremely hard to bend. In that sense there's a difference.
    - bane 12y ago
      It's the difference between "I can bend/break it with my bare hands" to "I can't bend/break it with my bare hands". Things stronger than humans tend to last better under use by humans.
      - baddox 12y ago
        I can choose not to bend/break my phone with my bare hands. That's good enough for me.
        seanp2k2 12y ago
        Sure, but I think the point is more the "when you have it in the front pocket of your skinny jeans and drunkenly run a bit into the edge of a counter top" case that could very reasonably happen in a 2-year replacement cycle of such a device. Personally, I'll be getting a rigid case that covers the back and sides.
maxerickson 12y ago
Deformation depends a lot more on the force than on how long the force is applied. There is a critical point where a material will permanently deform rather than springing back. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago

Your second point is a valid good one to at least consider. However just playing devil's advocate: 9 returns to Apple (assuming that figure is true) is absolutely trivial relative to the units shipped. I think it will be interesting to see where we stand in 6 months time. Will we see tons more phones return?

mwfunk 12y ago
That's really the only meaningful question here. It doesn't matter if it's quantifiably more likely to bend, what matters is if that results in enough phones getting damaged in normal usage to be an actual issue for people. No one will know that for a while. Non-ECC memory is more likely to get corrupted than ECC memory, but that doesn't mean that every single person who uses a computing device should be using ECC memory. Just because one thing is quantifiably less robust than something else is meaningless without a concept of "how robust does it need to be?" Obviously the company thinks the phones have sufficient tolerances. A few people on the Internet have posted firsthand accounts that they think proves that the phones are inadequate. A much larger group of people on the Internet who don't like the company that makes the phones practically salivate over these sorts of events, and have been making sure that absolutely everyone who reads any tech forums is HIGHLY AWARE that this is a very important thing that we should all know and care about very, very deeply. Journalists of course will write about this stuff because many of them interpret their job as writing about whatever people are talking about. Which brings us to the present, in which the only truth that anyone can point to is: no one actually knows if this is actually a problem or not. The only way to answer that question is to wait and see how many returns there are due to breakage. For people who care about truth, well, that's the truth, boring as it may be. In a few months we'll find out if a big company might make less money because somebody should've used a bigger number on a spreadsheet. Exciting! On the other hand, for people who care about arguing about things on the Internet, well, to hell with them, honestly.

idlewords 12y ago

The results show that the 6 series is similar in strength to phones of that size from other manufacturers. It stands to reason that a smaller, thicker phone like the iPhone 5 will be more rigid (though it's interesting that it's easier to deform a 6 than a 6+).

bane 12y ago
No, the results show that there's as much as a 50% difference in the results between top and bottom. That's a huge difference in structural terms.
- idlewords 12y ago
  Yeah, some of the phones in the test are quite hard to bend, and some are extremely hard to bend. In that sense there's a difference.
  - bane 12y ago
    It's the difference between "I can bend/break it with my bare hands" to "I can't bend/break it with my bare hands". Things stronger than humans tend to last better under use by humans.
    - baddox 12y ago
      I can choose not to bend/break my phone with my bare hands. That's good enough for me.
      - seanp2k2 12y ago
        Sure, but I think the point is more the "when you have it in the front pocket of your skinny jeans and drunkenly run a bit into the edge of a counter top" case that could very reasonably happen in a 2-year replacement cycle of such a device. Personally, I'll be getting a rigid case that covers the back and sides.

maxerickson 12y ago

Deformation depends a lot more on the force than on how long the force is applied. There is a critical point where a material will permanently deform rather than springing back. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)