What I'm worried about is future iPhones having to waist internal space that be used for the battery or other HW because they expect a yearly check on the bending despite no real world value to how this affects the device because it would be perceived as frail if bends under a slightly lower force.
Where are the tests for premium watches to see how strong their bands can be pulled before they snap? Is the value of a watch determined on such a parameter if it's otherwise well within the range of normal use?
You should worry about getting your facts right before worrying about anything else.
Isn't this rich- everyone at AI LOVES Consumer Reports now. Well Kumbaya my lawd.
So now we know for certain the iPhone4 was flawed by the same rationale thinking here. Except in its case it was machine tested for over a year plus and it was deemed flawed, Apple had to pay a class action lawsuit, the antenna was re-designed when the 4S arrived, etc- yet the idiotic fanboy trolls on here still deny it and buy this CR report as gospel.
What a sorry joke some of the posters on here are.
At least TS keeps to his earlier posts.
Why am I included in your little rant?
I have not once mentioned anything about the antenna or CR.
What I'm worried about is future iPhones having to waist internal space that be used for the battery or other HW because they expect a yearly check on the bending despite no real world value to how this affects the device because it would be perceived as frail if bends under a slightly lower force.
Where are the tests for premium watches to see how strong their bands can be pulled before they snap? Is the value of a watch determined on such a parameter if it's otherwise well within the range of normal use?
Yup, understand, hopefully Apple does not fall for this hysteria. An optional response from them perhaps could have been a simple- we design phones for real world useage, not intentionally induced damage.
Next thing ya know will have 'blend gate'. I put it in my blender and it chopped into tiny pieces.????
The most resilient device tested was the plastic-backed Samsung's Galaxy Note 3
/s
On a serious note, I'm a firm believer that the YouTube bend video that started this whole fiasco was unfair and unscientific.
That said, it's interesting to see that the Note 3 and the LG G3 did better then the iPhone 6's considering that they're made from 'cheap plastic' instead of metal, which is constantly touted as a superior material around these parts. Granted, when the 5C was released then there was a lot of back pedaling about plastic phones, but some even chose to stretch and say that Apple used better plastic then the competition. The 5C and this test really nullify the tired argument that plastic is a poor choice for smartphones. There's nothing wrong with preferring the look and feel of metal, but it's now crystal clear that this is purely a cosmetic option.
The S5 and Note 3 were both put through the same test and survived without any incident, Consumer Reports even said in their report that the Note 3 took the most weight out of all the phones tested until it broke, 150lbs. I'm sure the Note 4 and Note 4 Curve will fair the same. Their plastic phones so they have some elasticity in them, they'll bend but won't break unless a very large amount of force is applied.
The S5 was not tested by consumer reports in this article.
Plastic is typically more brittle than aluminum (i.e., cracks or breaks easier). Perhaps the "plastic phones" have more internal metal supports than the iPhone's empty aluminum back.
The note 3 is also thicker than the 6+, so there's that.
On a serious note, I'm a firm believer that the YouTube bend video that started this whole fiasco was unfair and unscientific.
That said, it's interesting to see that the Note 3 and the LG G3 did better then the iPhone 6's considering that they're made from 'cheap plastic' instead of metal, which is constantly touted as a superior material around these parts. Granted, when the 5C was released then there was a lot of back pedaling about plastic phones, but some even chose to stretch and say that Apple used better plastic then the competition. The 5C and this test really nullify the tired argument that plastic is a poor choice for smartphones. There's nothing wrong with preferring the look and feel, but it's now crystal clear that this is purely a cosmetic option.
Polymer composites have come a long way in terms of strength-to-weight ratio, and it's no surprise that a plastic phone can perform well in these tests. The design choice of aluminum is unlikely to be based on strength at all these days - more on the aesthetics of the device - and the trick is making Al structures strong enough.
Think it might have something to do with YouTube, a Google company? I have noticed more recently, that when I search for iPhone 6, at the top of the search results are videos that are making fun of the iPhone or are Samsung products with iPhone in the tag line. Maybe Google is applying its search algorithm to YouTube now?
You mean are they curating it? Possibly on their front page, but their search engine favors recent videos over older ones. This prevents older videos with a very high number of views (simply because its been out there longer) from "sticking" to the top of search results when the most relevant results are for something more current.
If I'm wrong I will admit it unlike others- most notably solopismX
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you do.
"This test by CR doesn't prove anything"
"So… is CR and a bunch of douche-nozzles on YouTube going to buy the Galaxy Note Edge to see how it holds to being bent? […] Clearly people look to use any negative press against Apple to create buzz for themselves so this makes one very suspicious."
"But note that [CR] only test the center of the device […] it really doesn't give you a complete picture."
"The only pat on the back I give CR in this case is testing more devices than I would have expected them to test and for going to the extreme to see when they split apart completely. In the end this is just a silly publicity stunt."
"The bottom line comes down to, "Is the device going to bend in your pocket or under any other normal wear and tear? If the answer is no, then there is nothing else to consider."
I'm really suckling CR's teat in this thread¡ :rolleyes:
While I like the bigger screen, I also feel that the 6 is hard to use it because it's big and heavy. I wish they would do what I hate to say summy does. reduce the case on top and bottom so that the screen stays the same size but the phone is actually smaller, maybe change the shape of the home bottom. For me I never used the touch ID on my 5s and don't seem to on the 6 either. But that's just me.
While I like the bigger screen, I also feel that the 6 is hard to use it because it's big and heavy. I wish they would do what I hate to say summy does. reduce the case on top and bottom so that the screen stays the same size but the phone is actually smaller, maybe change the shape of the home bottom. For me I never used the touch ID on my 5s and don't seem to on the 6 either. But that's just me.
Samsung uses a physical button on their devices just like Apple and HTC has front facing speakers which add to the bezel. What you're looking for is the LG G3. It's almost all screen.
Think it might have something to do with YouTube, a Google company? I have noticed more recently, that when I search for iPhone 6, at the top of the search results are videos that are making fun of the iPhone or are Samsung products with iPhone in the tag line. Maybe Google is applying its search algorithm to YouTube now?
You mean are they curating it? Possibly on their front page, but their search engine favors recent videos over older ones. This prevents older videos with a very high number of views (simply because its been out there longer) from "sticking" to the top of search results when the most relevant results are for something more current.
All I get on Google search is page after page of crap that has nothing to do with my query, just whoever paid the most to have their spam come out on top of every search, so why would I think that searches on Youtube would be anything but self-serving and agenda-driven? Maybe after they figure out a way to let people pay to wind up on top, it'll change.
All I can say is, the phones used for testing were completely wasted. I just hope they were necessary.
I feel the same way about all the new cars wasted in these idiotic crash tests. "Geez, you mean to say if you drive a car into a brick wall at 60 mph, it'll wreck it? That's useful information there!"
("It hurts when I do this!" "Don't do that!"—Archie Campbell's wisdom covers so many areas.)
The iPhone 6 tested significantly weaker than the iPhone 5. Over 40% weaker. I'm very surprised Apple would do this. I have believe they were 100% on top of this in the design process and knew the compromise they were making
I don't see how you can justify 1 mm reduction in thinness for 40% less structural integrity. How is that a good compromise?
Comments
What I'm worried about is future iPhones having to waist internal space that be used for the battery or other HW because they expect a yearly check on the bending despite no real world value to how this affects the device because it would be perceived as frail if bends under a slightly lower force.
Where are the tests for premium watches to see how strong their bands can be pulled before they snap? Is the value of a watch determined on such a parameter if it's otherwise well within the range of normal use?
You should worry about getting your facts right before worrying about anything else.
You are an running amok on these message boards. Is there anyone monitoring here at AI.com?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this....
Isn't this rich- everyone at AI LOVES Consumer Reports now. Well Kumbaya my lawd.
So now we know for certain the iPhone4 was flawed by the same rationale thinking here. Except in its case it was machine tested for over a year plus and it was deemed flawed, Apple had to pay a class action lawsuit, the antenna was re-designed when the 4S arrived, etc- yet the idiotic fanboy trolls on here still deny it and buy this CR report as gospel.
What a sorry joke some of the posters on here are.
At least TS keeps to his earlier posts.
Why am I included in your little rant?
I have not once mentioned anything about the antenna or CR.
Makes me question how rational you are.
Yup, understand, hopefully Apple does not fall for this hysteria. An optional response from them perhaps could have been a simple- we design phones for real world useage, not intentionally induced damage.
Next thing ya know will have 'blend gate'. I put it in my blender and it chopped into tiny pieces.????
Why am I included in your little rant?
I have not once mentioned anything about the antenna or CR.
Makes me question how rational you are.
Your right- I edited it. My apologies.
If I'm wrong I will admit it unlike others- most notably solopismX
Your right- I edited it. My apologies.
If I'm wrong I will admit it unlike others- most notably solopismX
Thank you.
Good luck.
The most resilient device tested was the plastic-backed Samsung's Galaxy Note 3
On a serious note, I'm a firm believer that the YouTube bend video that started this whole fiasco was unfair and unscientific.
That said, it's interesting to see that the Note 3 and the LG G3 did better then the iPhone 6's considering that they're made from 'cheap plastic' instead of metal, which is constantly touted as a superior material around these parts. Granted, when the 5C was released then there was a lot of back pedaling about plastic phones, but some even chose to stretch and say that Apple used better plastic then the competition. The 5C and this test really nullify the tired argument that plastic is a poor choice for smartphones. There's nothing wrong with preferring the look and feel of metal, but it's now crystal clear that this is purely a cosmetic option.
The S5 was not tested by consumer reports in this article.
Plastic is typically more brittle than aluminum (i.e., cracks or breaks easier). Perhaps the "plastic phones" have more internal metal supports than the iPhone's empty aluminum back.
The note 3 is also thicker than the 6+, so there's that.
Except in its case it was machine tested for over a year plus and it was deemed flawed…
Yeah, see, you keep saying things that aren’t true, so I’m going to keep asking you to prove your claims.
S IS FOR SIGNAL.
It’s also for shut up, but mostly for Siri.
Polymer composites have come a long way in terms of strength-to-weight ratio, and it's no surprise that a plastic phone can perform well in these tests. The design choice of aluminum is unlikely to be based on strength at all these days - more on the aesthetics of the device - and the trick is making Al structures strong enough.
You mean are they curating it? Possibly on their front page, but their search engine favors recent videos over older ones. This prevents older videos with a very high number of views (simply because its been out there longer) from "sticking" to the top of search results when the most relevant results are for something more current.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you do.
I'm really suckling CR's teat in this thread¡ :rolleyes:
Say it has just been used or the user have a rush of blood down their, what force bends at body temperature 37C ?
While I like the bigger screen, I also feel that the 6 is hard to use it because it's big and heavy. I wish they would do what I hate to say summy does. reduce the case on top and bottom so that the screen stays the same size but the phone is actually smaller, maybe change the shape of the home bottom. For me I never used the touch ID on my 5s and don't seem to on the 6 either. But that's just me.
Samsung uses a physical button on their devices just like Apple and HTC has front facing speakers which add to the bezel. What you're looking for is the LG G3. It's almost all screen.
Says the number one blathering amok-runner in recent AI history.
All I can say is, the phones used for testing were completely wasted. I just hope they were necessary.
All I get on Google search is page after page of crap that has nothing to do with my query, just whoever paid the most to have their spam come out on top of every search, so why would I think that searches on Youtube would be anything but self-serving and agenda-driven? Maybe after they figure out a way to let people pay to wind up on top, it'll change.
I feel the same way about all the new cars wasted in these idiotic crash tests. "Geez, you mean to say if you drive a car into a brick wall at 60 mph, it'll wreck it? That's useful information there!"
("It hurts when I do this!" "Don't do that!"—Archie Campbell's wisdom covers so many areas.)
"99% of us want thinner phone..." (c) sog35
/s