Likewise. Mine has taken more than a few spills and the case has saved it. I may just be a klutz.
I see this correlation = causation logic all the time about phone cases, and I find it quite bizarre. I've had an iPhone for 3 years now (3GS, then 4S). I've never used a case (or screen protector). I've dropped my phone before with no case and it survived. I've dropped it on pavement a couple times. I even lost it in the snow at a ski slope last winter. Someone found it and returned it. Works fine.
I don't doubt that cases reinforce phones, but I do think that people regard them as much more necessary than they actually are. Sure, if you have a kid in the house who loves to play with your phone, you should probably get a case. But as long you're careful with your phone for the most part (i.e. you're not consistently dropping it on pavement or something, you don't carry it in the same pocket as your keys, etc.), you probably don't need a case or screen protector. The phones aren't THAT fragile.
I know it won't protect the device in every situation, but the $10 case protects the device in some situations (maybe only 10% or 20% of drops), so it has a very high ROI.
I once dropped my unprotected iPad from a height of about 2 feet, it landed on the granite floor on a corner edge, and the screen shattered. I had to buy a new iPad basically as Apple doesn't fix them. It now has a $20 case, and I would be willing to bet the value of the iPad that if I dropped it from the same height and it hit the same corner, the device would not have any significant damage although the case might.
That is distinctly not what I'm asking for. I specifically said "I don't doubt that cases reinforce phones" to address this. What I'm saying is that at any point no person could possible know whether their case has just saved their phone, or whether the phone would have been just as fine without the case.
> I know it won't protect the device in every situation, but the $10 case protects the device in some situations (maybe only 10% or 20% of drops), so it has a very high ROI.
My point is that I think most people don't actually get that ROI. I've had an iPhone for three years. I've dropped my phone. No case. The phone is fine. If you use a case and never drop your phone in such a way that you would have broken it (which is impossible to know, but I'm arguing is an overstated risk), then the price you've paid is a bulkier, heavier, uglier phone. The case comes with a cost other than just $10. If I could pay $10 to have my phone magically become invincible, I would do it. If I could pay $10 for a case, I would not.
I'm sorry to hear your iPad broke. I should say that I'm specifically talking about phones, mostly because the cost of having a case on my iPad all the time would be lower for me than with a phone, which you have to stick in a pocket all the time and thus suffers more from added bulkiness.
So yes, we can't say much from all the anecdotes here. But there are strong reasons to suspect that phone cases are a net win in protecting screens from damage.
I guess my point is that I'd like to see a study like this, and I'd like people to stop saying "My case has saved my phone so many times," because nobody really knows that.
I'd like to know how much and in what situations a case actually is likely to save your phone from meaningful damage. Because, to use the analogy, my phone's been in a bunch of car accidents without its seatbelts -- non-trivial ones -- and is completely fine.
It would be one thing if a case didn't come with the added cost of a bulkier phone (as you mentioned, rubber cases make the phone fatter). But they do, so it's a cost-benefit analysis, and I think we're all mostly guessing. My assertion is just that I think most people are guessing too much on the side in favor of having a case, because iPhones are not as fragile as they seem as long as you treat them with a reasonable amount of care.
Accidents aren't about reasonable amounts of care. Cases are obviously there to protect phones when placed in non-ideal situations. Your crusade against cases is fairly silly.
This anecdote not the double-blind replicated clinical trial that HN seems to insist on as a rational basis for believing anything, but it's enough to convince me to keep using the case. There's such a thing as being too skeptical.