Are you both an iPhone abuser and a non-believing troll? iPhones do not crack, Steve has even banned film protectors from the store to proove that very point.
Hate to fuel the fire, but I have to disagree. In general use, no, they don't crack. But they still can.
My roommate has cracked his 3G's screen twice now. Not a small, in the corner crack. I mean spider web crack on the whole screen. Though he is a bit of a clutz at times...
Hate to fuel the fire, but I have to disagree. In general use, no, they don't crack. But they still can.
My roommate has cracked his 3G's screen twice now. Not a small, in the corner crack. I mean spider web crack on the whole screen. Though he is a bit of a clutz at times...
There is your answer: iPhone is not built for clutzes. Most clutzes use Windoze anyway.
The bezel patent may be part of a greater design by apple, but you can put scratches on it with a hard look. All of the iphone/ipad devices that I have used look like someone has taken steel wool to the bezel even after a couple months.
Regarding the glass- It may be difficult to scratch, but you can shatter it without much of an effort....an errant drop on a hard surface and turn the screen into something spider man would be proud of. I hate protective cases and would prefer an even sturdier design & screen by apple.
I didn't buy the thing so I could put it into a rubberized condom, or a hard case that doubles it's size.
Yes, I just noticed that I mistyped aluminum. Corrected now.
While it does technically fall under the manufacturing and processes category, I'm still a bit amazed. Most of the patents I've seen from our company have a "reason" behind it that improves something.
While you can argue that the reason here is to increase strength (as stated in the patent wording), it feels to me the spirit of the patent is more to guard against the "look" of the iPhone after the steel is bent.
FYI, cold-working steel is nothing new in the world. Cold-work means to bend without heating the metal up.
How many times do you have to repeat yourself? You've made your lame point, now move on for cryin' out loud.
How many times do you have to repeat yourself? You've made your lame point, now move on for cryin' out loud.
*sigh* Yet another Prof. Peabody post...
If you read lower, I was given more information and I corrected myself. Are you saying I'm not allowed to respond back to the posts of other users? Is this not a forum where discussions are held?
My point at the beginning was no less lame than your post (and this one for that matter, for even bothering to reply back).
Yes, I just noticed that I mistyped aluminum. Corrected now.
While it does technically fall under the manufacturing and processes category, I'm still a bit amazed. Most of the patents I've seen from our company have a "reason" behind it that improves something.
While you can argue that the reason here is to increase strength (as stated in the patent wording), it feels to me the spirit of the patent is more to guard against the "look" of the iPhone after the steel is bent.
It doesn't matter what the final purpose of the part is for. What matters is whether this part was produced in a way that similar parts haven't been, and whether that gives it a material advantage. If so, the patent is valid.
It's even allowable to take two or more patents and combine them so that a third patent is produced, as long as the use derived is different from wither of the two patents included.
This is all old stuff. It's been done from the very beginning in patent law. Nothing new.
If I take a piece of metal, and bend it in a way that allows something to be done that couldn't be done before in that way, then I may very well have a patented invention. Just because all I'm doing is bending the metal, doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve a patent. Lay people so often miss the picture.
Now this is better information. I wasn't able to get the pictures. Now that I've seen them, I stand corrected.
P.S. To Prof. Peabody, instead of your rant that just makes you sound like a d-bag, you could have just done what Quadra did above. I thought it was just for the metal strip that goes around the iPhone, when it's really for the case as a whole. Simple misunderstanding on my part.
What you did is also "a bit lame, IMO".
Well I waited till you asked the same question three times and after two people had corrected you.
While I was writing it, two other people corrected you and you wrote a fourth post re-iterating what you were arguing even though it's clearly just wrong. You've filled up a quarter of the thread with your misunderstanding, and taken up the time of several people who have answered you when simply taking a moment to read the article right in front of you would have cleared it up.
Now you're apologising, but you're also making it personal and calling me names which doesn't exactly endear you to anyone. I'm supposed to feel bad that I pointed this out? Why?
I wouldn't call the iPhone a "well made, sturdy phone".
well designed? yes definatelly.
materials that look good on paper? for the 1gen yes (aluminum, glass, chrome).
but sturdy? not really
There were a FEW reports of that in the very beginning. Then nothing. Not exactly much of a problem. As for scratches, I'd like to see some proof that it's more than a rare thing. All glass can scratch. You would rather have very scratchable plastic everyone else used instead? You might notice that many manufacturers rushed to copy Apple's glass coating because of its scratch resistance.
Those were pretty desperate links.
Go back to reading some articles. While YOU wouldn't consider it to be well made, everyone else does.
I'm not saying this shouldn't been allowed. I'm just a bit surprised that a patent to bend steel into the shape of a rectangular loop was put forth and passed. I'm going off of what's written in the article at the moment. If the patent itself is made available and there's a more intricate process than what it seems like, then that's all fine.
While I'm not a metal fabricator personally, I'm an engineer for Sikorsky, where we do a lot of metal and composites work in-house. Plenty of Process/Manufacturing Engineers to go around.
Then ask some of the people involved in designing those parts who have to understand the process involved. There's a large variation in methodology. Using old methods for new shapes which may not have been fab'ed that way could easily be seen as an innovation deserving a patent.
Quote:
But that doesn't mean a cold-worked bezel is the only way to make it sturdy. I can argue that the DROID I hold in my hand easily measures up to an iPhone in toughness. I've had it knocked from my hand sitting down and standing up (a 6 foot drop) and I just picked it up and carried on.
No one says it does. Competing models for many structures exist, and many have been patented. A patent is simply a way of saying that I've invented a way of doing this, and now you have to invent your own. Look at tapers for machinery. There are Morse tapers, Brown & Sharp tapers, Jarno tapers, Jacobs tapers, and others. All were patented. The difference between them is slight from the lay persons point of view, but all have differing advantages. Most were so important that they are still extent.
Quote:
I used to have a Storm (I know, I know, go ahead and make fun of me) which I've dropped onto concrete multiple times with no issues. I carry both without screen protectors in my pockets all the time and I have still yet to find a scratch.
OTOH, I dropped my 3GS about a month ago and now I have a nice crack in the display. Fortunately, it's off on one side and small -- it doesn't seem to affect the operation of the device -- but I went and bought an Otterbox case the next day.
The devices are *not* impervious to abuse. They *can* scratch and they *can* break. Some people have been lucky, and their iPhones have survived some horrible abuse. Others, not so much. Just because *you've* dropped a phone and it survived doesn't mean all phones will do this.
I hate having a plastic sheet over my iPhone screen. I hate having the plastic and rubber case around the phone. But I like having a phone that lasts at least two years (something that didn't happen with my first-gen iPhone, I went through two of them and then struggled with a broken iPhone for 5 months until the 3GS came out).
Hopefully, my current phone will make it another year so I can upgrade to next year's model and skip the one coming out this year. If the Otterbox achieves that, it will have been $50 well spent.
Everything can get damaged. Even a block of solid hardened alloy tool steel will get damaged if dropped on the corner onto solid concrete.
What matters is how many phones have been sold, and how many get damaged how often. If I drop a phone 50 times and it gets damaged, then it's pretty good. Some people may be unlucky enough to drop it on the worst surface, at the worst angle.
That's why silicone "skins' are sold. Even though the phone is pretty solid, I don't want to take chances!
I see people drop their phones. The battery cover is always flying off, and the battery goes too. Usually they can't get the cover to stay on because it, or the phone is broken. I see keyboards break off, keys get permanently stuck, cases crack open. All sorts of fun for the owners.
If I ask if it's ever been dropped before, the answer is usually "no".
The bezel patent may be part of a greater design by apple, but you can put scratches on it with a hard look. All of the iphone/ipad devices that I have used look like someone has taken steel wool to the bezel even after a couple months.
Regarding the glass- It may be difficult to scratch, but you can shatter it without much of an effort....an errant drop on a hard surface and turn the screen into something spider man would be proud of. I hate protective cases and would prefer an even sturdier design & screen by apple.
I didn't buy the thing so I could put it into a rubberized condom, or a hard case that doubles it's size.
Most people don't seen to drop their phones that often, and when they do, it's usually not on a surface that is so hard that the phone will break if it's well made.
But now that most all, if not all, phones with large screens use glass, they are all subject to cracking if they do land on a hard surface corner down.
As scratching seems to be a much greater problem for phones that have screen input than dropping, glass is a good choice.
Then ask some of the people involved in designing those parts who have to understand the process involved. There's a large variation in methodology. Using old methods for new shapes which may not have been fab'ed that way could easily be seen as an innovation deserving a patent.
No one says it does. Competing models for many structures exist, and many have been patented. A patent is simply a way of saying that I've invented a way of doing this, and now you have to invent your own. Look at tapers for machinery. There are Morse tapers, Brown & Sharp tapers, Jarno tapers, Jacobs tapers, and others. All were patented. The difference between them is slight from the lay persons point of view, but all have differing advantages. Most were so important that they are still extent.
Good.
Machine tapers are a great example. A slightly cone shape piece of metal. Seems obvious after the fact, which is what good design is about.
I find it tough to believe Asianbob is an engineer. Maybe electrical. He keeps insisting cold working metal is " pretty much just bending". No. The general shape of the metal most certainly wasn't bent at all . I doubt the attachment points were either.His posts remind me of the saying "a little knowledge is dangerous".
Comments
You rang?
Are you both an iPhone abuser and a non-believing troll? iPhones do not crack, Steve has even banned film protectors from the store to proove that very point.
Hate to fuel the fire, but I have to disagree. In general use, no, they don't crack. But they still can.
My roommate has cracked his 3G's screen twice now. Not a small, in the corner crack. I mean spider web crack on the whole screen. Though he is a bit of a clutz at times...
Hate to fuel the fire, but I have to disagree. In general use, no, they don't crack. But they still can.
My roommate has cracked his 3G's screen twice now. Not a small, in the corner crack. I mean spider web crack on the whole screen. Though he is a bit of a clutz at times...
There is your answer: iPhone is not built for clutzes. Most clutzes use Windoze anyway.
Regarding the glass- It may be difficult to scratch, but you can shatter it without much of an effort....an errant drop on a hard surface and turn the screen into something spider man would be proud of. I hate protective cases and would prefer an even sturdier design & screen by apple.
I didn't buy the thing so I could put it into a rubberized condom, or a hard case that doubles it's size.
There is your answer: iPhone is not built for clutzes. Most clutzes use Windoze anyway.
If not built for clutzes, then why make them so strong? Are you implying that accidents can't happen?
Funny you say that, though. He's pretty much a full Mac user.
Yes, I just noticed that I mistyped aluminum. Corrected now.
While it does technically fall under the manufacturing and processes category, I'm still a bit amazed. Most of the patents I've seen from our company have a "reason" behind it that improves something.
While you can argue that the reason here is to increase strength (as stated in the patent wording), it feels to me the spirit of the patent is more to guard against the "look" of the iPhone after the steel is bent.
FYI, cold-working steel is nothing new in the world. Cold-work means to bend without heating the metal up.
How many times do you have to repeat yourself? You've made your lame point, now move on for cryin' out loud.
How many times do you have to repeat yourself? You've made your lame point, now move on for cryin' out loud.
*sigh* Yet another Prof. Peabody post...
If you read lower, I was given more information and I corrected myself. Are you saying I'm not allowed to respond back to the posts of other users? Is this not a forum where discussions are held?
My point at the beginning was no less lame than your post (and this one for that matter, for even bothering to reply back).
I guess a paper clip would be alright, too . . .
But this kicks Clippy's ass.
There is your answer: iPhone is not built for clutzes. Most clutzes use Windoze anyway.
Congrats-you made it to my troll/ignore list
Yes, I just noticed that I mistyped aluminum. Corrected now.
While it does technically fall under the manufacturing and processes category, I'm still a bit amazed. Most of the patents I've seen from our company have a "reason" behind it that improves something.
While you can argue that the reason here is to increase strength (as stated in the patent wording), it feels to me the spirit of the patent is more to guard against the "look" of the iPhone after the steel is bent.
It doesn't matter what the final purpose of the part is for. What matters is whether this part was produced in a way that similar parts haven't been, and whether that gives it a material advantage. If so, the patent is valid.
It's even allowable to take two or more patents and combine them so that a third patent is produced, as long as the use derived is different from wither of the two patents included.
This is all old stuff. It's been done from the very beginning in patent law. Nothing new.
If I take a piece of metal, and bend it in a way that allows something to be done that couldn't be done before in that way, then I may very well have a patented invention. Just because all I'm doing is bending the metal, doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve a patent. Lay people so often miss the picture.
Now this is better information. I wasn't able to get the pictures. Now that I've seen them, I stand corrected.
P.S. To Prof. Peabody, instead of your rant that just makes you sound like a d-bag, you could have just done what Quadra did above. I thought it was just for the metal strip that goes around the iPhone, when it's really for the case as a whole. Simple misunderstanding on my part.
What you did is also "a bit lame, IMO".
Well I waited till you asked the same question three times and after two people had corrected you.
While I was writing it, two other people corrected you and you wrote a fourth post re-iterating what you were arguing even though it's clearly just wrong. You've filled up a quarter of the thread with your misunderstanding, and taken up the time of several people who have answered you when simply taking a moment to read the article right in front of you would have cleared it up.
Now you're apologising, but you're also making it personal and calling me names which doesn't exactly endear you to anyone. I'm supposed to feel bad that I pointed this out? Why?
thanks, I didn't LOL for a long time.
remember the hairline cracks in the iphone casing?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2321
Or what about the screen? scratches pretty fast.
the Droid i think, for example uses Gorilla Glass, which is quite more sturdy than the iPhones.
http://gizmodo.com/5443146/gorilla-g...on-unbreakable
I wouldn't call the iPhone a "well made, sturdy phone".
well designed? yes definatelly.
materials that look good on paper? for the 1gen yes (aluminum, glass, chrome).
but sturdy? not really
There were a FEW reports of that in the very beginning. Then nothing. Not exactly much of a problem. As for scratches, I'd like to see some proof that it's more than a rare thing. All glass can scratch. You would rather have very scratchable plastic everyone else used instead? You might notice that many manufacturers rushed to copy Apple's glass coating because of its scratch resistance.
Those were pretty desperate links.
Go back to reading some articles. While YOU wouldn't consider it to be well made, everyone else does.
I'm not saying this shouldn't been allowed. I'm just a bit surprised that a patent to bend steel into the shape of a rectangular loop was put forth and passed. I'm going off of what's written in the article at the moment. If the patent itself is made available and there's a more intricate process than what it seems like, then that's all fine.
While I'm not a metal fabricator personally, I'm an engineer for Sikorsky, where we do a lot of metal and composites work in-house. Plenty of Process/Manufacturing Engineers to go around.
Then ask some of the people involved in designing those parts who have to understand the process involved. There's a large variation in methodology. Using old methods for new shapes which may not have been fab'ed that way could easily be seen as an innovation deserving a patent.
But that doesn't mean a cold-worked bezel is the only way to make it sturdy. I can argue that the DROID I hold in my hand easily measures up to an iPhone in toughness. I've had it knocked from my hand sitting down and standing up (a 6 foot drop) and I just picked it up and carried on.
No one says it does. Competing models for many structures exist, and many have been patented. A patent is simply a way of saying that I've invented a way of doing this, and now you have to invent your own. Look at tapers for machinery. There are Morse tapers, Brown & Sharp tapers, Jarno tapers, Jacobs tapers, and others. All were patented. The difference between them is slight from the lay persons point of view, but all have differing advantages. Most were so important that they are still extent.
I used to have a Storm (I know, I know, go ahead and make fun of me) which I've dropped onto concrete multiple times with no issues. I carry both without screen protectors in my pockets all the time and I have still yet to find a scratch.
Good.
Because Steve Jobs told you so?
Because of the evidence.
Now you're making nuisance posts.
Stop it.
OTOH, I dropped my 3GS about a month ago and now I have a nice crack in the display. Fortunately, it's off on one side and small -- it doesn't seem to affect the operation of the device -- but I went and bought an Otterbox case the next day.
The devices are *not* impervious to abuse. They *can* scratch and they *can* break. Some people have been lucky, and their iPhones have survived some horrible abuse. Others, not so much. Just because *you've* dropped a phone and it survived doesn't mean all phones will do this.
I hate having a plastic sheet over my iPhone screen. I hate having the plastic and rubber case around the phone. But I like having a phone that lasts at least two years (something that didn't happen with my first-gen iPhone, I went through two of them and then struggled with a broken iPhone for 5 months until the 3GS came out).
Hopefully, my current phone will make it another year so I can upgrade to next year's model and skip the one coming out this year. If the Otterbox achieves that, it will have been $50 well spent.
Everything can get damaged. Even a block of solid hardened alloy tool steel will get damaged if dropped on the corner onto solid concrete.
What matters is how many phones have been sold, and how many get damaged how often. If I drop a phone 50 times and it gets damaged, then it's pretty good. Some people may be unlucky enough to drop it on the worst surface, at the worst angle.
That's why silicone "skins' are sold. Even though the phone is pretty solid, I don't want to take chances!
I see people drop their phones. The battery cover is always flying off, and the battery goes too. Usually they can't get the cover to stay on because it, or the phone is broken. I see keyboards break off, keys get permanently stuck, cases crack open. All sorts of fun for the owners.
If I ask if it's ever been dropped before, the answer is usually "no".
The bezel patent may be part of a greater design by apple, but you can put scratches on it with a hard look. All of the iphone/ipad devices that I have used look like someone has taken steel wool to the bezel even after a couple months.
Regarding the glass- It may be difficult to scratch, but you can shatter it without much of an effort....an errant drop on a hard surface and turn the screen into something spider man would be proud of. I hate protective cases and would prefer an even sturdier design & screen by apple.
I didn't buy the thing so I could put it into a rubberized condom, or a hard case that doubles it's size.
Most people don't seen to drop their phones that often, and when they do, it's usually not on a surface that is so hard that the phone will break if it's well made.
But now that most all, if not all, phones with large screens use glass, they are all subject to cracking if they do land on a hard surface corner down.
As scratching seems to be a much greater problem for phones that have screen input than dropping, glass is a good choice.
Someone once got that special tool in the mail by mistake. It was a paper clip.
http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/offi...netool/2302578
I believe that was for removing the SIM card.
Spankage in 3... 2... 1...
http://www.mobileguerilla.com/articl...pad-design.php
That is just bad, seriously, its companies like that, makes me just wonder.
Then ask some of the people involved in designing those parts who have to understand the process involved. There's a large variation in methodology. Using old methods for new shapes which may not have been fab'ed that way could easily be seen as an innovation deserving a patent.
No one says it does. Competing models for many structures exist, and many have been patented. A patent is simply a way of saying that I've invented a way of doing this, and now you have to invent your own. Look at tapers for machinery. There are Morse tapers, Brown & Sharp tapers, Jarno tapers, Jacobs tapers, and others. All were patented. The difference between them is slight from the lay persons point of view, but all have differing advantages. Most were so important that they are still extent.
Good.
Machine tapers are a great example. A slightly cone shape piece of metal. Seems obvious after the fact, which is what good design is about.
I find it tough to believe Asianbob is an engineer. Maybe electrical. He keeps insisting cold working metal is " pretty much just bending". No. The general shape of the metal most certainly wasn't bent at all . I doubt the attachment points were either.His posts remind me of the saying "a little knowledge is dangerous".
Congrats-you made it to my troll/ignore list
Who are you??? Are you a widoze user? If so, begone troll.