Here's why I prefer polycarbonate to cheap metal...

[matttye]

Someone is in denial.

Deny it all you want.

Apple produced an inferior quality phone. Which is not up to the same durability levels its predecessors were.

Deny it all you want, the truth is. As far as being durable goes, the iPhone 5 is inferior to the earlier iPhones.

Comes out of the box damaged, loose change can damage it, putting it in your pocket will damage it, people are returning it 5-6 times to get one without damage.

Great phone. I'll pass, and stick with phones that don't come broken out of the box.

Is anyone surprised by the responses of Apple apologists? I mean, they're practically saying "you're pocketing it wrong."

Technarcky, Hytetic and their ilk think they're helping Apple, when they're actually doing disservice. Real fans would be the first to admit shortcomings.

But oh well. At the end of the day, its their own loss for not being intellectually honest. They're the ones that have to use iOS.

To the above two posters: I'm open to the fact that the iPhone might be badly designed, but you're jumping the gun. There's only been a handful of reports of the iPhone bending and god only knows how those people bent their phones. Where are the scientific tests?

You can't declare a phone as weak and badly designed just because a few people say it is. If there were thousands of these complaints, then sure, give them a bit more weight, but the only place I've seen this being discussed is here - the Apple witch hunt forum.

 

[Technarchy]

A problem I know too well!

The Scots have it covered though!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

Deep fried Mars (US: MilkyWay) chocolate bar. Doesn't work well with iPhone5!

Lived in Edinburgh for a couple of years and never had a deep fried Mars bar, not to be confused with the disgusting American Mars bar. I missed out.

White pudding and HP after a few pints, now that's heaven.

I wouldn't put it past someone to throw an iPhone in a fryer and then complain on this forum that the design couldn't withstand 400°F oil.

 

[F123D]

There's only been a handful of reports of the iPhone bending and god only knows how those people bent their phones.

Fair enough. However, how do we explain the phone easily being scuffed, scratched, and dented? Is this all user error as well? Or is this an issue with the materials used for the iPhone? Clearly, this isn't just a handful of people.

 

[daveathall]

I've gotta say, and nothing I have read so far changes my mind, but any phone bent in someones pocket by sitting on it will be damaged, I don't care who makes it. I take precautions by not putting my phone in my front or back pocket of my trousers, I have with every smart phone I have owned be it Apple, Samsung or Nexus (LG). The smart phones we are talking about here are not advertised as being rugged in any way, and should not be thought of as such.

 

[matttye]

Fair enough. However, how do we explain the phone easily being scuffed, scratched, and dented? Is this all user error as well? Or is this an issue with the materials used for the iPhone? Clearly, this isn't just a handful of people.

Things get scuffs and scratches, wear and tear, nothing is invincible.

My phone has scuffs and scratches but no dents, because I look after it.

 

[onthecouchagain]

To the above two posters: I'm open to the fact that the iPhone might be badly designed, but you're jumping the gun. There's only been a handful of reports of the iPhone bending and god only knows how those people bent their phones. Where are the scientific tests?

You can't declare a phone as weak and badly designed just because a few people say it is. If there were thousands of these complaints, then sure, give them a bit more weight, but the only place I've seen this being discussed is here - the Apple witch hunt forum.

Agreed. I've said this before...

I want to be clear, I'm not even necessarily knocking the iPhone 5 per se. Defects do happen. But there's only one side of the fans that keeps touting superior build quality, superior engineering (where's Zbarian?), superior design, premium material, etc.

Zbarian once said thinner and lighter is only innovation if it's engineered correctly also. Where is he now?

 

[aerok]

1. one hard use is bad. Impossible to use with one-hand in most instances.
5. Having to take out the back cover and remove the battery in order to take out my SIM so I can swap it into my iPhone 4S.
.

1. Why would you buy a Note II to use it one-handed? Doesn't make any sense at all.
5. I rather take out the SIM card that way instead of using SIM tool to remove the SIM. At least I can do it anytime without needing a tool or needle.

 

[lordofthereef]

Photosynthesis involves oxidation. So when a plant goes through photosynthesis, it's corroding?

No Sir. During cellular oxidation you have destruction and repair. Yes, strictly speaking oxidation is harmful to cells. But it is also a necessary for most life, at least how we know it. Corrosion specifically refers to metals, in the sense that we are using it here. A metal's oxidation is that metal's corrosion, or vice versa. Do you follow?

It's a thesaurus. What does your link prove?

I gave you a link because that seems to be what is accepted on forums these days as "proof". I also have no idea as to the general board's understanding of chemical and biological processes. Much like I would prefer a simple definition when someone was speaking computer engineering, I am sure others prefer a simple explanation in fields of my own forte. I could give you my degree in Biology and a Doctorate in Veterinary medicine as proof too, but then you would probably just claim I am making it all up. Continue to live in ignorance, I guess...

 

[cynics]

You guys are still bickering about this?!? Both materials have there pros and cons. This is such a trivial matter since they are both just cases. It's not like the outside of one phone is better because its a better conductor so the phone works better.

With NFC becoming more popular in android phones you'll likely never see an aluminum case. Plastic or glass is what we are going to see.

Androids first tablet the Xoom had an aluminum case with an extremely tough coating. It feels mil spec. So it's not like it never happens.

I like aluminum, I think it give the iPhone a premium feel. But I also think newer Android phones feel of premium quality. In the end its of little consequence to me because it could be a platinum back, it will be covered by my plastic case.

 

[G51989]

I've gotta say, and nothing I have read so far changes my mind, but any phone bent in someones pocket by sitting on it will be damaged, I don't care who makes it.

Really? I keep my phones in my back pocket lots of the time, and I've sat on tons of them by accident, none of them bent or broke.

The iPhone 5 is alone in this category.

 

[hyteckit]

No Sir. During cellular oxidation you have destruction and repair. Yes, strictly speaking oxidation is harmful to cells. But it is also a necessary for most life, at least how we know it. Corrosion specifically refers to metals, in the sense that we are using it here. A metal's oxidation is that metal's corrosion, or vice versa. Do you follow?

Wasn't I responding to SICKBOY?

SICKBOY said oxidation is corrosion. So are you saying SICKBOY is wrong?

----------

Fair enough. However, how do we explain the phone easily being scuffed, scratched, and dented? Is this all user error as well? Or is this an issue with the materials used for the iPhone? Clearly, this isn't just a handful of people.

How many iPhone 5 are in use? 10 million? 20 million? 30 million?

How many iPhone 5 users have reported the issue?

Less than 1%?

It's a manufacturing and quality control issue.

 

[macrem]

Recently many people have been complaining of bent iPhones. Well, considering how cheaply made the iPhone 5 feels, I'm not surprised. It seems Apple went for thinness and weight savings at the cost of rigidity and durability.

The video from 1:22 to 1:55 is the sole reason I prefer polycarbonate to cheap thin metal. Flex.

VIDEO

Here's another VIDEO from Android Authority: iPhone 5 vs. Nexus 3s drop test.

TL;DW... iPhone 5 withstood drop test with significantly less damage

PS: I think both are great devices

 

[lordofthereef]

Wasn't I responding to SICKBOY?

SICKBOY said oxidation is corrosion. So are you saying SICKBOY is wrong?

Nope, you were responding to me. You can take a look yourself if you like. Post #170. But this is silly, and along with most of my responses to you, a waste of time. This will be my last. Promise.

----------

Here's another VIDEO from Android Authority: iPhone 5 vs. Nexus 3s drop test.

TL;DW... iPhone 5 withstood drop test with significantly less damage

PS: I think both are great devices

Honestly, anyone that uses a drop test video to "prove" anything is, well, misinformed. (and I am not saying you are doing this, but many do). People expected the Lumia to be unbreakable based on drop tests. You should see the threads about people cracking their screens dropping them on the ground from a relatively low height (general operational height or even lower). These phones all have one thing in common. THEY ARE A HUGE SHEET OF GLASS on at least one side. They WILL break under the right conditions. Since no drop test can reproduce, exactly, the conditions (well, at least not the drop tests that we see in videos) it is literally impossible to say which phone is the victor.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Wasn't I responding to SICKBOY?

SICKBOY said oxidation is corrosion. So are you saying SICKBOY is wrong?

Way to twist what I said. When I was talking about oxidation being corrosion I did so only in the context of metals and aluminium. But I think you know that.

 

[macrem]

Honestly, anyone that uses a drop test video to "prove" anything is, well, misinformed. (and I am not saying you are doing this, but many do). People expected the Lumia to be unbreakable based on drop tests. You should see the threads about people cracking their screens dropping them on the ground from a relatively low height (general operational height or even lower). These phones all have one thing in common. THEY ARE A HUGE SHEET OF GLASS on at least one side. They WILL break under the right conditions. Since no drop test can reproduce, exactly, the conditions (well, at least not the drop tests that we see in videos) it is literally impossible to say which phone is the victor.

Although I'd tend to agree with you given a 1-2 drop comparison, in this test, after dropping both phones several times & the S3"s screens was cracked in two different places, he dropped the 5 an extra time from high above his head onto a rock surface & still the screen was not even scratched. This attests to how well the 5's design protects the screen.

 

[F123D]

Although I'd tend to agree with you given a 1-2 drop comparison, in this test, after dropping both phones several times & the S3"s screens was cracked in two different places, he dropped the 5 an extra time from high above his head onto a rock surface & still the screen was not even scratched. This attests to how well the 5's design protects the screen.

And all these people dropped their iPhone 5's once and it cracked so these drop tests don't prove anything. Same guy did a drop test on a Galaxy Note II and it didn't crack. Does this show how well the Note II's design protects the screen? No. Drop test don't prove anything.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1474612/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1489606/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1470734/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1454788/

 

[macrem]

And all these people dropped their iPhone 5's once and it cracked so these drop tests don't prove anything. Same guy did a drop test on a Galaxy Note II and it didn't crack. Does this show how well the Note II's design protects the screen? No. Drop test don't prove anything.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1474612/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1489606/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1470734/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1454788/

There are no absolutes but when you drop a phone multiple times including from head level and above the head, there is merit to this test. Unlike the video, the examples you gave do not demonstrate the conditions under which the phones were broken.

Btw the OP does a comparison showing a video in which the 5 is not even part of the test.

 

[matttye]

Let me explain why drop tests don't really accomplish anything in as few words as possible.

Drop tests: not random.
Drops: random.

 

[macrem]

Let me explain why drop tests don't really accomplish anything in as few words as possible.

Drop tests: not random.
Drops: random.

Let's say you drop object A 5 times from 8ft and it never breaks. In the same test, object B breaks every time from 3 feet. You think this is a meaningless test that says nothing about the build quality of the objects?

 

[matttye]

Let's say you drop object A 5 times from 8ft and it never breaks. In the same test, object B breaks every time from 3 feet. You think this is a meaningless test that says nothing about the build quality of the objects?

It means that one is better at drop tests than the other.

When you accidentally drop a phone, it will drop from a random height, onto a random surface, at a random angle and a random part of the phone will hit the floor. Drop tests are not that random.

I've dropped phones before climbing out of my car for example, and they tend to get flung at the floor rather than simply dropped. I don't see many drop tests that actually throw the phone at the floor with some force.

 

[Nabooly]

Based on drop tests I think we should all just get BlackBerry's and call it a day They're virtually indestructible!

The whole drop test issue is really bogus imo. I've seen iPhones break from a few feet on asphalt/concrete. I've dropped my iphone from about 4 feet (on accident) and it didn't even show any damage except a small ding. I've also seen the same from all other phones. Completely random. Electronics break...that's just how it goes. If you're that worried about it get some insurance for like $7 a month and call it a day.

Except blackberry's, you can throw it across the parking lot and make a call right after [it boots back up because the battery fell out...so like 4 minutes ]

 

[NT1440]

Fair enough. However, how do we explain the phone easily being scuffed, scratched, and dented? Is this all user error as well? Or is this an issue with the materials used for the iPhone? Clearly, this isn't just a handful of people.

Its aluminum, and unless you're someone who can't figure out the properties of aluminum, its not an issue.

I see beat up phones all day every day at work. It seems only the iPhone people and some of the S3 are the ones that are anal about scratches on the body, even though 90% of them are in cases for life. Everyone else use these tools as if they were, gasp, tools for communication.

 

[F123D]

Let's say you drop object A 5 times from 8ft and it never breaks. In the same test, object B breaks every time from 3 feet. You think this is a meaningless test that says nothing about the build quality of the objects?

Which isn't the case with cell phones as each drop test ends in different results.

 

[siiip5]

Let's say you drop object A 5 times from 8ft and it never breaks. In the same test, object B breaks every time from 3 feet. You think this is a meaningless test that says nothing about the build quality of the objects?

Any info from a test like this is nothing but circumstantial and conjecture. A meaningful test would be to replicate a drop via a machine, within a vacuum, at sea level, onto the exact same point of a surface. This ensures accuracy of how a phone drops, so it is duplicated every time. No test can account for imperfections within the phone itself. Micro fractures within the glass. Weak points in the frame due to inconsistencies within the poor of the poly carbonate or aluminum.
Of course, if you test a significant number of phones from within a batch and find only a small percentage yield failures, it is safe to conclude your batch is good for shipment. Some companies, however, may know there is a higher percentage of failures and put their phone on the market anyway. It is cheaper to deal with returns and repairs, than to retool for your current batch and recall all the product you have already made. Sound like a certain company we know?

 

[lordofthereef]

Although I'd tend to agree with you given a 1-2 drop comparison, in this test, after dropping both phones several times & the S3"s screens was cracked in two different places, he dropped the 5 an extra time from high above his head onto a rock surface & still the screen was not even scratched. This attests to how well the 5's design protects the screen.

To be clear, I am not here arguing that the iPhone 5 isn't better built. I am also not arguing that it is worse. Just want to get that out there for anyone reading my response.

Once you have a crack/damage, any drops after that are going to cause greater degrees of damage. You are literally likely to see more and more damage after every fall. It's simple physics. A great example is car windshields. You get a small chip from a rock or something, and after time (heat, cold, air pressure, more potential debris flinging) you are way more prone to spider webs or worse.

None of these tests are scientific in the least. Just about the only value these tests provide is letting us see these shiny new devices take a beating, all the while people arguing about how wasteful the testers are because they could have put the phones to better use. The entertainment value is pretty high, but that is about it.

----------

Let's say you drop object A 5 times from 8ft and it never breaks. In the same test, object B breaks every time from 3 feet. You think this is a meaningless test that says nothing about the build quality of the objects?

I absolutely think it is meaningless. Well, mostly. At the very least, you would need a couple hundred devices on each side to make any of this data remotely valuable. He could have dropped the iPhone 100 times. It still wouldn't mean anything. Conversely, had the iPhone broken on a single drop (which I am sure has happened) would we be arguing that it is the worst design ever conceived? No (well, I wouldn't anyway).