I love the glass - it's so much more appealing than the cheap plastic/rubber phones. I don't use a case or a bumper on my iPhone. If I break it, I'll just buy another - no biggie.
As the old newspaper editors would say, a catchy title sells newspapers... same thing on the web. Catchy titles sell...
Why do you think we have iMac instead of All-in-One Macintosh or Powerbook instead of Laptop Macintosh. Catchy titles sell products....
I agree with you, but this was not in the title. It was in the body of the article. But even at that, you can be catchy AND inventive. The N-word would certainly be "catchy" in a title, but sometimes being catchy has to be tempered with a little sensitivity, or in my argument, a little imagination.
That is one heck of a claim. Got anything to back it up?
ISTM that surface scratches are universally used to make glass more susceptible to cracking. Google the term glass cutting for any number of websites describing how to apply surface scratches to glass in order to make it more susceptible to cracking.
Got anything at all to back up your claim?
Maybe you should read what I said and what those websites say again.
That is one heck of a claim. Got anything to back it up?
ISTM that surface scratches are universally used to make glass more susceptible to cracking. Google the term glass cutting for any number of websites describing how to apply surface scratches to glass in order to make it more susceptible to cracking.
Got anything at all to back up your claim?
The kind of scratch created by a glass cutting tool (and thus used to cut glass) is more akin to scoring as opposed to scratching and quite different from a "scratch" created by a bit of dirt or debris. And yes, I googled it. I doubt the fine scratches resulting from the abrasions from dirt and debris would be sufficient to weaken the glass to make it more susceptible to cracking.
I love the glass - it's so much more appealing than the cheap plastic/rubber phones. I don't use a case or a bumper on my iPhone. If I break it, I'll just buy another - no biggie.
Did read my second sentence? Thought I acknowledged that. I was addressing the matter of passing stuff like that on instead of filtering it out. In that case, it's not just the source who is at fault.
Sorry, I didn't see that. However, it would seem to me that it's properly disclaimed, not simply passing on.
All this stuff about glass backs being "wrong" because they can be scratched is such nonsense. Plastic scratches too. So does aluminum. Both probably as readily as glass.
My car would be a lot less susceptible to scratching if it didn't have a painted metal surface, but I like it to be beautiful as well as functional. Sure, maybe a cast iron hull like a tank would be stronger. Same with the iPhone. It's a personal accessory as well as an electronic device. If making it cool makes it a little less resistant to small scratches on the back, I can live with it. It's a trade off.
I agree that form is important, but while the 3GS had form and function, the iPhone 4 managed to expose the antenna and degrade signal quality (unless you think it's just an issue with mine?) and while the idea of putting glass on the back is elegant, the spider-web pattern on mine from dropping it 1 time from about 2 feet doesn't speak highly of the idea from a functional perspective.
The 3GS felt better in the hand and the case didn't crack if you happened to drop it from a couple of feet. (Just basing that on my case and those of other friends - cracked backs & front/back corners.) I'm not asking for a Dell design, I'm just saying the iPhone 4 has some issues. Great screen, better camera, but the usability took a leap backwards. ... .
No offence but this is almost entirely backwards in terms of being an analysis of "form versus function" or "form over function" in design.
In the first place, a good design, and the goal of all industrial designers is to perfectly meld form and function together, not to favour one over the other. Most things function *because* of their form, so it makes sense that the designers goal is to make the form of the object just right so that the function is enhanced.
The 3Gs with the rounded plastic back is a case of form and function *not* being in sync in that it's just a shape full of electronic junk, one of which is the antenna. The shape of the 3Gs could be lots of different ways and still work.
The iPhone 4 on the other hand is a perfect example of form and function going hand in hand. The steel band that is the chassis and the strongest structural element, is also at the same time a fantastic antenna, better than the generic antenna in the 3Gs. The glass back is also a blending of form and function in that it has to be radio transparent, so the only real possibilities here are plastic or glass. The glass is actually stronger than the plastic overall, and less likely to scratch. that alone is a good reason to choose it.
The design of the iPhone 4 begins and ends with the antenna/chassis. Once that decision is made, the glass back is all but inevitable barring some future material that won't break *or* scratch.
You can argue these issues back and forth depending on what aspects of which devices one focusses on, but to argue at the end of the day that Apple *ever* values form over function in the sense that they will reduce the function in order to get a pretty or cool looking form, is just 100% wrong. It's a popular meme, but there just isn't any evidence for it and mostly those that advance it have no idea what they are talking about and no idea about design or design principles. They are just mouthing a phrase they heard from someone else.
Glass cracks when scratched. It cannot compress; it can only split. The size of the particle can be plenty big enough to cause a nasty scratch and still be nearly invisible to the eye. That scratch can and will elongate and deepen based on things like heat and cold and flexture and minor shocks. ...
Yeah I tried pointing that out a couple of months ago and was lectured on "Gorilla Glass".
The 3GS felt better in the hand and the case didn't crack if you happened to drop it from a couple of feet. ...
I also prefer the shape of the 3Gs. Feels better in the hand than the iPhone4 "cereal box". Of course it's moot for most people who immediately wrap protective armor around the device, never to be seen or touched again.
I'm not sure of the relative "crackability" between the two devices but did just have to purchase a iPhone4 for my wife since her 3Gs cracked pretty badly.
Personally I prefer the metal backings. Anyone remember Jobs waxing eloquent about the original ipod's metal backing developing a patina of wear-marks and scratches over time, becoming more beautiful in the process? I strongly agreed. He apparently moved on.
That in itself could account for it?s ability to absorb an impact better without actually being a ?different? composite of Corning?s Gorilla Glass®.
I thought the iPhone4 didn't use Gorilla Glass. The company that did the teardown and made the Gorilla Glass claim later backtracked and withdrew the claim.
So, why not replace the glass with nano-engineered diamond sheeting?
Diamond is hard, but is also brittle, so might not be ideal. A good material for the back would actually be jade, being amongst the 'toughest' minerals known. It is also fairly hard and would not be easily scratched. Might be a bit expensive for margin obsessed Apple. A good synthetic material would be PSZ, an extremely 'tough' ceramic developed by the CSIRO in Australia.
I thought the iPhone4 didn't use Gorilla Glass. The company that did the teardown and made the Gorilla Glass claim later backtracked and withdrew the claim.
I think that was the other way around by some sham tests done before the iPhone 4 was released.
My iPhone's camera lens is scratched and I have to pay to replace it. I'm thinking, they should have stuck to plastic. I never had a scratched lens with my 3G. Either that or Apple (or some company like Speck) needs to make a decent case not just a bumper and have a lens cover on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant
I love the glass - it's so much more appealing than the cheap plastic/rubber phones. I don't use a case or a bumper on my iPhone. If I break it, I'll just buy another - no biggie.
My iPhone's camera lens is scratched and I have to pay to replace it. I'm thinking, they should have stuck to plastic. I never had a scratched lens with my 3G. Either that or Apple (or some company like Speck) needs to make a decent case not just a bumper and have a lens cover on it.
Assumimg you are referring to the glass v. Plastic back panel your rationale is at worst apophenia or at best a comfirmation bias.
The material of the case does not affect when and how particles will scratch the camera lens. What could affect it is the material used for the camera lens (which I think has always been scatch resistant, by nature, glass) or how flush the back panel is with the camera lens.
Assumimg you are referring to the glass v. Plastic back panel your rationale is at worst apophenia or at best a comfirmation bias.
The material of the case does not affect when and how particles will scratch the camera lens. What could affect it is the material used for the camera lens (which I think has always been scatch resistant, by nature, glass) or how flush the back panel is with the camera lens.
The camera's protective cover, or filter, or whatever it is, looks like a separate piece, and it feels like it protrudes very slightly. I'm seeing some scratches on mine, and a coworker's camera has gotten pretty hazy as a result of scratches on that.
Apple has reportedly suspended sales of slide-on cases for the iPhone 4 in its retail stores, as users have apparently experienced issues with scratching and even breaking glass.
My local store must be unique because I have never seen a slide on case sold there. Snap on yes, but no sliders.
Comments
As the old newspaper editors would say, a catchy title sells newspapers... same thing on the web. Catchy titles sell...
Why do you think we have iMac instead of All-in-One Macintosh or Powerbook instead of Laptop Macintosh. Catchy titles sell products....
I agree with you, but this was not in the title. It was in the body of the article. But even at that, you can be catchy AND inventive. The N-word would certainly be "catchy" in a title, but sometimes being catchy has to be tempered with a little sensitivity, or in my argument, a little imagination.
That is one heck of a claim. Got anything to back it up?
ISTM that surface scratches are universally used to make glass more susceptible to cracking. Google the term glass cutting for any number of websites describing how to apply surface scratches to glass in order to make it more susceptible to cracking.
Got anything at all to back up your claim?
Maybe you should read what I said and what those websites say again.
That is one heck of a claim. Got anything to back it up?
ISTM that surface scratches are universally used to make glass more susceptible to cracking. Google the term glass cutting for any number of websites describing how to apply surface scratches to glass in order to make it more susceptible to cracking.
Got anything at all to back up your claim?
The kind of scratch created by a glass cutting tool (and thus used to cut glass) is more akin to scoring as opposed to scratching and quite different from a "scratch" created by a bit of dirt or debris. And yes, I googled it. I doubt the fine scratches resulting from the abrasions from dirt and debris would be sufficient to weaken the glass to make it more susceptible to cracking.
I love the glass - it's so much more appealing than the cheap plastic/rubber phones. I don't use a case or a bumper on my iPhone. If I break it, I'll just buy another - no biggie.
Fantastic.
Did read my second sentence? Thought I acknowledged that. I was addressing the matter of passing stuff like that on instead of filtering it out. In that case, it's not just the source who is at fault.
Sorry, I didn't see that. However, it would seem to me that it's properly disclaimed, not simply passing on.
My car would be a lot less susceptible to scratching if it didn't have a painted metal surface, but I like it to be beautiful as well as functional. Sure, maybe a cast iron hull like a tank would be stronger. Same with the iPhone. It's a personal accessory as well as an electronic device. If making it cool makes it a little less resistant to small scratches on the back, I can live with it. It's a trade off.
Sorry, I didn't see that. However, it would seem to me that it's properly disclaimed, not simply passing on.
More quoted than disclaimed, but I take your point.
I agree that form is important, but while the 3GS had form and function, the iPhone 4 managed to expose the antenna and degrade signal quality (unless you think it's just an issue with mine?) and while the idea of putting glass on the back is elegant, the spider-web pattern on mine from dropping it 1 time from about 2 feet doesn't speak highly of the idea from a functional perspective.
The 3GS felt better in the hand and the case didn't crack if you happened to drop it from a couple of feet. (Just basing that on my case and those of other friends - cracked backs & front/back corners.) I'm not asking for a Dell design, I'm just saying the iPhone 4 has some issues. Great screen, better camera, but the usability took a leap backwards. ... .
No offence but this is almost entirely backwards in terms of being an analysis of "form versus function" or "form over function" in design.
In the first place, a good design, and the goal of all industrial designers is to perfectly meld form and function together, not to favour one over the other. Most things function *because* of their form, so it makes sense that the designers goal is to make the form of the object just right so that the function is enhanced.
The 3Gs with the rounded plastic back is a case of form and function *not* being in sync in that it's just a shape full of electronic junk, one of which is the antenna. The shape of the 3Gs could be lots of different ways and still work.
The iPhone 4 on the other hand is a perfect example of form and function going hand in hand. The steel band that is the chassis and the strongest structural element, is also at the same time a fantastic antenna, better than the generic antenna in the 3Gs. The glass back is also a blending of form and function in that it has to be radio transparent, so the only real possibilities here are plastic or glass. The glass is actually stronger than the plastic overall, and less likely to scratch. that alone is a good reason to choose it.
The design of the iPhone 4 begins and ends with the antenna/chassis. Once that decision is made, the glass back is all but inevitable barring some future material that won't break *or* scratch.
You can argue these issues back and forth depending on what aspects of which devices one focusses on, but to argue at the end of the day that Apple *ever* values form over function in the sense that they will reduce the function in order to get a pretty or cool looking form, is just 100% wrong. It's a popular meme, but there just isn't any evidence for it and mostly those that advance it have no idea what they are talking about and no idea about design or design principles. They are just mouthing a phrase they heard from someone else.
Glass cracks when scratched. It cannot compress; it can only split. The size of the particle can be plenty big enough to cause a nasty scratch and still be nearly invisible to the eye. That scratch can and will elongate and deepen based on things like heat and cold and flexture and minor shocks. ...
Yeah I tried pointing that out a couple of months ago and was lectured on "Gorilla Glass".
The 3GS felt better in the hand and the case didn't crack if you happened to drop it from a couple of feet. ...
I also prefer the shape of the 3Gs. Feels better in the hand than the iPhone4 "cereal box". Of course it's moot for most people who immediately wrap protective armor around the device, never to be seen or touched again.
I'm not sure of the relative "crackability" between the two devices but did just have to purchase a iPhone4 for my wife since her 3Gs cracked pretty badly.
Personally I prefer the metal backings. Anyone remember Jobs waxing eloquent about the original ipod's metal backing developing a patina of wear-marks and scratches over time, becoming more beautiful in the process? I strongly agreed. He apparently moved on.
That in itself could account for it?s ability to absorb an impact better without actually being a ?different? composite of Corning?s Gorilla Glass®.
I thought the iPhone4 didn't use Gorilla Glass. The company that did the teardown and made the Gorilla Glass claim later backtracked and withdrew the claim.
So, why not replace the glass with nano-engineered diamond sheeting?
Diamond is hard, but is also brittle, so might not be ideal. A good material for the back would actually be jade, being amongst the 'toughest' minerals known. It is also fairly hard and would not be easily scratched. Might be a bit expensive for margin obsessed Apple. A good synthetic material would be PSZ, an extremely 'tough' ceramic developed by the CSIRO in Australia.
I thought the iPhone4 didn't use Gorilla Glass. The company that did the teardown and made the Gorilla Glass claim later backtracked and withdrew the claim.
I think that was the other way around by some sham tests done before the iPhone 4 was released.
I love the glass - it's so much more appealing than the cheap plastic/rubber phones. I don't use a case or a bumper on my iPhone. If I break it, I'll just buy another - no biggie.
Someone sure is rich...
My iPhone's camera lens is scratched and I have to pay to replace it. I'm thinking, they should have stuck to plastic. I never had a scratched lens with my 3G. Either that or Apple (or some company like Speck) needs to make a decent case not just a bumper and have a lens cover on it.
Assumimg you are referring to the glass v. Plastic back panel your rationale is at worst apophenia or at best a comfirmation bias.
The material of the case does not affect when and how particles will scratch the camera lens. What could affect it is the material used for the camera lens (which I think has always been scatch resistant, by nature, glass) or how flush the back panel is with the camera lens.
Assumimg you are referring to the glass v. Plastic back panel your rationale is at worst apophenia or at best a comfirmation bias.
The material of the case does not affect when and how particles will scratch the camera lens. What could affect it is the material used for the camera lens (which I think has always been scatch resistant, by nature, glass) or how flush the back panel is with the camera lens.
The camera's protective cover, or filter, or whatever it is, looks like a separate piece, and it feels like it protrudes very slightly. I'm seeing some scratches on mine, and a coworker's camera has gotten pretty hazy as a result of scratches on that.
Apple has reportedly suspended sales of slide-on cases for the iPhone 4 in its retail stores, as users have apparently experienced issues with scratching and even breaking glass.
My local store must be unique because I have never seen a slide on case sold there. Snap on yes, but no sliders.