The drop tests durability on ALL smart phones is crap with a capital K. I laughed when they mentioned tougher glass during the iphone 11 reveal, who on earth doesn’t use some kind of protective case on a $1000 device.
If they conducted such a drop test in front of me as I were standing in line waiting for one, odds are I'd not be able to withhold slinging some expletives their way.
I am surprised that they have not brought booth with iPhone cases with them! They would sell bunch of them lol.
Just wait for iPhone 12 with each phone exterior forged as a Prince Rupert's drop around the encased electronics, with the tail tucked inside, enshrouded in a void to prevent anything coming in contact with it. Nothing short of a bullet will shatter the glass.
Apple has a video for iPhone 11 Pro on their YouTube channel, where they briefly show their drop test. It’s entirely unrealistic. The video shows the phone being held upright in a clamp, which then descends towards the ground at speed, and at about a foot off the ground the clamp opens releasing the iPhone which then hits the floor. As a result, only the bottom of the device makes contact with the floor.
It would be almost impossible to drop a phone in this way in real life. The iPhone is not a cat which can ‘right’ itself midway through free fall, ensuring it lands only on a specific side.
Why Apple doesn't use sapphire glass? I know it is expensive, but really one has to have a 1000+ US$ iPhone with cracked screen after a simple drop and being charged for 329 US$ if one is not covered with Apple Care+?
My GF dropped her Samsung phone and the screen broke and it cost her 385 Euro in Latvia that's $500 U.S. money to get it fixed then the phone didn't work very good an had to buy new phone so go to a Android site and complain about not using sapphire glass.....
It's a lottery but a little common sense (a decent case) and thoughtful design could go a long way.
If the number one hardware repair is for cracked glass (no idea if it is), manufacturers should be designing to make the repair easier and cheaper or looking to make the glass far more impact resistant or changing the material itself.
I hear stories of the iPhone rear panel being very expensive to fix and pray my wife doesn't drop her XR even though it's in a transparent gel case with raised air bumps on the corners.
I have been wondering why Apple selected glass as the back for the newer phones? Certainly metal had to be eliminated because of wireless charging -- but there are other materials than glass that are more durable. The problem is: With glass both front and rear, the cost of repair is doubled and, in the case of my friend, Apple didn't even try to repair it -- they just gave him a new phone because his was damaged both front and rear...
Did Apple choose glass for its appearance? If so, that does me and most others no good because we keep our phones in cases.
Perhaps a similar situation was faced by the optical industry a couple decades ago: All prescription eyeglass lenses were made from glass. But, glass proved to be thick, heavy and breakable. So they moved to high quality optical plastic that had (very nearly) the optical qualities of glass but were (or are now) thinner, lighter and essentially unbreakable (although they will scratch more easily).
Hopefully, Apple finds something better than glass for the rear of its next batch of phones.... Functionality over appearance.
Why Apple doesn't use sapphire glass? I know it is expensive, but really one has to have a 1000+ US$ iPhone with cracked screen after a simple drop and being charged for 329 US$ if one is not covered with Apple Care+?
My GF dropped her Samsung phone and the screen broke and it cost her 385 Euro in Latvia that's $500 U.S. money to get it fixed then the phone didn't work very good an had to buy new phone so go to a Android site and complain about not using sapphire glass.....
I hope you were a gentleman and gave her guidance as to how to find the nearest Apple Store or if no Apple Store in reasonable distance, you provided her a link to purchase an iPhone online...
Nothing contradictory that I see about them. The phone was doing pretty poorly in the "tests" on rough outdoor concrete, but quite well in the "tests" on smooth and finished indoor concrete. Even in the corner test a drop on a hard, rough, abrasive surface is going to be tougher than a drop on a smooth one.
I have been wondering why Apple selected glass as the back for the newer phones? Certainly metal had to be eliminated because of wireless charging -- but there are other materials than glass that are more durable. The problem is: With glass both front and rear, the cost of repair is doubled and, in the case of my friend, Apple didn't even try to repair it -- they just gave him a new phone because his was damaged both front and rear...
Did Apple choose glass for its appearance? If so, that does me and most others no good because we keep our phones in cases.
Perhaps a similar situation was faced by the optical industry a couple decades ago: All prescription eyeglass lenses were made from glass. But, glass proved to be thick, heavy and breakable. So they moved to high quality optical plastic that had (very nearly) the optical qualities of glass but were (or are now) thinner, lighter and essentially unbreakable (although they will scratch more easily).
Hopefully, Apple finds something better than glass for the rear of its next batch of phones.... Functionality over appearance.
I’m guessing they chose glass because plastic would have been considered too ‘cheap’ for a premium phone. Glass is also much more durable when it comes to scratches, so it looks better. As long as you don’t drop it. The irony is that virtually everyone puts their phone in a case precisely because it’s so easy to break the back, so the fact that the back might get scratched is basically a moot point because you never see it.
Also, the repair costs are not doubled with the glass back - they’re more than doubled. It’s $329 to replace the Xs screen, but $549 to replace the back. (Without Apple care)
I may be in the minority, but I really don’t give a rip about wireless charging. It’s slower, wastes energy and more prone to error. It also adds materials costs and takes up battery space in the phone, not to mention the problems detailed in this article. If Apple offered a choice between a glass-backed model with wireless charging and a metal-framed model without I would choose the metal-framed model in a heartbeat.
Why Apple doesn't use sapphire glass? I know it is expensive, but really one has to have a 1000+ US$ iPhone with cracked screen after a simple drop and being charged for 329 US$ if one is not covered with Apple Care+?
A few years ago Apple invested in a company that promised to make sapphire glass screens for phones. It was a total disaster. They simply could not make them big enough for anything above watches and camera windows, let alone in any quantity. Cost Apple half a billion or by the time it was all over very close to a billion dollars.
I have been wondering why Apple selected glass as the back for the newer phones? Certainly metal had to be eliminated because of wireless charging -- but there are other materials than glass that are more durable. The problem is: With glass both front and rear, the cost of repair is doubled and, in the case of my friend, Apple didn't even try to repair it -- they just gave him a new phone because his was damaged both front and rear...
Did Apple choose glass for its appearance? If so, that does me and most others no good because we keep our phones in cases.
Perhaps a similar situation was faced by the optical industry a couple decades ago: All prescription eyeglass lenses were made from glass. But, glass proved to be thick, heavy and breakable. So they moved to high quality optical plastic that had (very nearly) the optical qualities of glass but were (or are now) thinner, lighter and essentially unbreakable (although they will scratch more easily).
Hopefully, Apple finds something better than glass for the rear of its next batch of phones.... Functionality over appearance.
I’m guessing they chose glass because plastic would have been considered too ‘cheap’ for a premium phone. Glass is also much more durable when it comes to scratches, so it looks better. As long as you don’t drop it. The irony is that virtually everyone puts their phone in a case precisely because it’s so easy to break the back, so the fact that the back might get scratched is basically a moot point because you never see it.
Also, the repair costs are not doubled with the glass back - they’re more than doubled. It’s $329 to replace the Xs screen, but $549 to replace the back. (Without Apple care)
I may be in the minority, but I really don’t give a rip about wireless charging. It’s slower, wastes energy and more prone to error. It also adds materials costs and takes up battery space in the phone, not to mention the problems detailed in this article. If Apple offered a choice between a glass-backed model with wireless charging and a metal-framed model without I would choose the metal-framed model in a heartbeat.
Yeh, They in fact tried plastic in the 5c (which was falsely labelled as the "5Cheap"). And, yeh, plastic is more prone to scratches than glass and many metals.
But, it would likely bring repair costs WAY down since the primary reasons for repair are glass replacement and battery replacement. But then, who thinks of repair costs when they buy a new phone? People rarely even think much about AppleCare -- they either get it or they don't.
But, here's a thought! What would happen if Apple replaced the glass both front and rear with optical grade plastic -- and added a replaceable screen protector to prevent scratches? They could market it as the most unbreakable phone in the world! I am betting that that would sell. But, it would also be a drag on sales because many end up replacing their phone because the glass is cracked and broken.
It's sad that real, working phones have to die for these tests. Maybe Apple should make "inert" phones available to professional reviewers and case makers for a nominal fee for conducting these tests. By "inert" I mean phones that are physically identical to production units but totally inoperative except perhaps some onboard telemetry and super simple UI related to the shock testing, say to show the forces experiences at various points on the phone's structure. I know this may sound silly, but it's not like you see Consumer Reports or Road & Track doing crash tests on production motor vehicles to fill out the pages of their magazines. Yeah, there's a difference between a $1000 phine and a $50,000 car, but waste is waste, especially when it's ad hoc, non scientific, and unquantifiable.
They keep making the glass stronger, but the phones are also getting heavier—the 11 is almost 50% heavier than the iPhone 6–so when they fall, the impact is greater.
The thing about glass is it all depends on how it hits. I've had regular glass jars land on concrete and bounce several times without cracking. I've also dropped the same jars from a few inches and had them seem to explode. Gorilla Glass might be more resistant to shattering, but the same rule applies. It all depends on how it hits. That's why I keep my phone in a case.
This. My brother in law had an iPhone in a case that fell from a height of about 3 feet onto a carpeted surface and cracked the screen. If the phone hits just right and stresses the glass in the right way it will crack. Very small differences in how the phone hits can make the difference between totally shattering the screen and no damage at all.
No matter how they try to run these tests, there’s always enough variability to make them meaningless.
These drop tests are so dumb, just click bait garbage, imo.
And why do they only test one phone?
They should buy at least 100 iPhones and then drop them all. Maybe I'd bother to click on that video.
Even with more durable glass, glass is going to sometimes break when dropped. What a shocker.
If somebody is worried about their phone dropping and if certain people are more careless and accident prone than others, then go put your phone in a case maybe.
I don't have the newest iPhone, but if I did, I'd use it naked, like I always have done with my previous phones. I wouldn't want to cover up the nice design and feel of it. I've had my current iPhone for a couple of years now and it's still going strong. I have never dropped it once, either intentionally or accidentally.
And now that you’ve announced it to the entire world, you will drop it.
I’d never dropped my phone for many years and rolled my eyes at those who had until one day I dropped mine and cracked its screen.
Comments
There is interesting drop test of iPhone 11:
If the number one hardware repair is for cracked glass (no idea if it is), manufacturers should be designing to make the repair easier and cheaper or looking to make the glass far more impact resistant or changing the material itself.
I hear stories of the iPhone rear panel being very expensive to fix and pray my wife doesn't drop her XR even though it's in a transparent gel case with raised air bumps on the corners.
Certainly metal had to be eliminated because of wireless charging -- but there are other materials than glass that are more durable.
The problem is: With glass both front and rear, the cost of repair is doubled and, in the case of my friend, Apple didn't even try to repair it -- they just gave him a new phone because his was damaged both front and rear...
Did Apple choose glass for its appearance? If so, that does me and most others no good because we keep our phones in cases.
Perhaps a similar situation was faced by the optical industry a couple decades ago: All prescription eyeglass lenses were made from glass. But, glass proved to be thick, heavy and breakable. So they moved to high quality optical plastic that had (very nearly) the optical qualities of glass but were (or are now) thinner, lighter and essentially unbreakable (although they will scratch more easily).
Hopefully, Apple finds something better than glass for the rear of its next batch of phones.... Functionality over appearance.
Also, the repair costs are not doubled with the glass back - they’re more than doubled. It’s $329 to replace the Xs screen, but $549 to replace the back. (Without Apple care)
I may be in the minority, but I really don’t give a rip about wireless charging. It’s slower, wastes energy and more prone to error. It also adds materials costs and takes up battery space in the phone, not to mention the problems detailed in this article. If Apple offered a choice between a glass-backed model with wireless charging and a metal-framed model without I would choose the metal-framed model in a heartbeat.
It works best on small screens (Apple Watch) and covering the protruding camera on iPhones.
When is the last time you dropped a watch? Different priorities.
But, it would likely bring repair costs WAY down since the primary reasons for repair are glass replacement and battery replacement. But then, who thinks of repair costs when they buy a new phone? People rarely even think much about AppleCare -- they either get it or they don't.
But, here's a thought! What would happen if Apple replaced the glass both front and rear with optical grade plastic -- and added a replaceable screen protector to prevent scratches? They could market it as the most unbreakable phone in the world! I am betting that that would sell. But, it would also be a drag on sales because many end up replacing their phone because the glass is cracked and broken.