Study says Apple's iPhone 4 most reliable, most fragile smartphone



  • Reply 41 of 50
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

    Not likely. The antenna issue was overblown FUD and the iPhone 4 is as durable as the 3 series if not more. The rear glass panel can be replaced fairly easily so as long as the front glass isn't cracked most people are going to be fine IMO.

    The hard part about some of this is knowing differences in damage tolerance. iPhone users tend to get extremely upset over even little scratches on a phone, where as many BBerry or droid users may even go so far as to simply tape up cracks & breaks on their phone. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but a possibility. The BBerry I used to have looked like absolute garbage, just wasn't all that concerned about the aesthetics of it. When I got an iPhone now it drives me crazy that I have a few tiny specs of dust under the screen, even though my blackberry screen just about looked white when turned off because of all the dust in there.
  • Reply 42 of 50
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    Apple should pour some dollars into the development of "Rubberglass".

    Yeah, thin, transparent, stretchy, doesn't break or tear easily, one-size-fits-all........ wait....
  • Reply 43 of 50
    Originally Posted by BartBuzz View Post

    Here's my take. Most of the cost of owning a smartphone is with the two-year contract. At a minimum that's about $2000 for individuals and over $4000 for family plans. So the extra $100 or $200 one has to spend for an iPhone over the competition is in the noise level. The two-year contract is why Verizon and all the other carriers are so anxious to get the iPhone.

    What are you talking about? All carriers ask for a two year contract for smartphones and non-smartphone alike.

    So much for the competition building crappy phones. Moto is only a unt hair behind Apple.
  • Reply 44 of 50
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    "Still better than the others". That the best you can come up with.

    One should not define quality as a relative property if one is pursuing (or trying to purchase) excellence. It's clear that the Apple fans have a hard time admitting this.

    But I'm very happy for you that you have better things to do with your life...

    I think when one is pursuing excellence the very goal is to best the competition in design, functionality, and reliability when entering a market. After you accomplish that great feat, you have to keep releasing new models that best your previous ones.

    This study (with it's projections) is proving the iPhone 4 is the most reliable smartphone available. That is excellent regardless what your opinion of the failure rate is.

    If Apple operated as you insist, they'd have to revolutionize the logic board, soldering points, transistors, wiring, adhesives, and the physical elements of the universe to best some mythical unicorn smartphone that has zero failure rate. Companies don't work in a vacuum, as much as Apple tries, and they have to balance excellence of their product with profitability, marketability, etc.

    I think Apple having 1/3 the malfunction rate of Blackberry says more about Blackberry's poor performance and Apple's excellence than your argument that Apple needs to improve because their phones fail 2.1% of the time and that's just unacceptable.

    Finally, if you drop your phone and it breaks, it's YOUR fault. You know what it's made of on the outside, you know it has delicate miniature electronics inside. You have no excuse.

    If these failure rates are unacceptable to you, don't look at the competition, it only gets worse. I think you shouldn't buy a smartphone because they seem to be too fragile and inferior in design for your taste. Let me know when a smartphone comes out that has a failure rate acceptable to you. I might want to research it myself. And please stay away from studies regarding computer failure rate, otherwise we may not have the pleasure of your comments on this forum any longer.
  • Reply 45 of 50
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    Apple should pour some dollars into the development of "Rubberglass".

    They are.

    Indestructible iPhones baby.
  • Reply 46 of 50
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    Apple should pour some dollars into the development of "Rubberglass".

    Funniest post of the month! Made me laugh!

    Or maybe use concrete, yeah that's it a concrete phone!

  • Reply 47 of 50
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,481member
    I disagree with those who think that there's no need for Apple to redesign for the next generation of iPhone. While the antenna complaints were clearly overblown and exaggerated, they do in fact exist for many users and I would be shocked if Apple did not change that design. It doesn't mean they'll remove the antennas from the outside, but they will fix it so you can't easily short it.

    A phone is a small object that is easy to drop. I used to drop my old Motorola Razr phone several times a week. I've only dropped my 2nd gen iPhone a few times. The back is somewhat scratched (mostly from small particles that gather between the case and the phone), but the front is fine. It's never suffered any damage from a drop.

    But since a phone is subject to dropping, it seems to me that Apple needs to find an engineering solution to it, just as they came up with a solution to people kicking power cords attached to computers with the mag connector. Maybe everything but the front can be made from the monoblock material used on the MacBook Pro line or maybe they can make use of the liquid metal patents they acquired.

    I'm all for elegant design, but a phone is a device that's in constant use - it doesn't sit on a shelf to admire. Besides, what's the point of a great design if you have to hide it by using a case? It seems to me that Apple is a bit insincere on this point.
  • Reply 48 of 50
    back screen?
  • Reply 49 of 50
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    Anybody who thinks a product category with such lousy products that a 1/8 failure rate is somehow good is an idiot. You should really look at what you wrote and think about how stupid that comment really is. Those who think for themselves look for excellence. We don't compare lousy choices and crow about selecting the best of the worst.

    Anybody that believes 1/8 of the iPhones are broken within 12 months and this is the FIRST we have heard about the epidemic is primed for the Nigerian emails.

    The numbers are so far above the Apple reported failure/return rates of less than 1% it is unbelievable that this can (the 13.8%) even be anything other than a completely made up figure.
  • Reply 50 of 50
    From AI:

    "The data seems to suggest that the likelihood of drop damage is directly proportional to the amount of glass on the device," the report noted.

    So Buy a phone with no glass. Result: no drop damage.

    Or, Buy a Blackberry. You won't even have to drop it. Total rate (malfunction + accident) = 6.3% + 6.7% = 15.0% vs. Apple's Phone 4 for which the total rate = 2.1% + 13.8% = 15.9%.
Sign In or Register to comment.