iPhone 6 and 6 Plus not as bendy as believed
consumerreports.org
consumerreports.org
Bending is a result of moments and moments are driven by moment arms. These tests should not be looking at point load required to induce deformation but rather the moment required to induce deformation. Each of these should have been converted into equivalent moments based on the size of the phone.
For example, the M8 is shown as 146.3 mm (5.76 in) H; 70.6 mm (2.78 in) W; 9.4 mm (0.37 in) D and the iPhone 6 is 138.1 x 67 x 6.9 mm (5.44 x 2.64 x 0.27 in) and both are shown to "deform" at 70 lbs.
The M8 has an induced moment of 100 lb-in while the iPhone 6 has an induced moment of 95 lb-in. The resultant bending stress by assuming a linear stress distribution across the section is then 1575 psi for the M8 and 2950 psi for the iPhone 6.
Similar analyses should be undertaken for each of the other phones.
A more accurate test for the failure mode of concern would be a four point load test in which moment is constant across a portion of the phone. The three point load test induces a moment that is maximum at the point of load application. The four point load test is more likely to show you where the point of weakness in the phone is.
http://www.instron.us/wa/acc_catalog/prod_list.aspx?cid=833&...
http://www.instron.us/wa/applications/test_types/flexure/con...
---
My attempt at a "for dummies" summary of the issue here:
If you look carefully, the Consumer Reports tests involve placing end supports roughly 1/4" from either edge of each phone. Basically, all the phones are different sizes and thus have varying amounts of material and torque being applied between the supports and the part of the machine pressing down. A particularly long phone which yields at 70lb of force has actually performed better than a stubby one which yields at 70lb in this case. Hopefully I didn't just say anything too wrong or confusing, because I'm not going to notice until the morning...
I don't know what the stresses applied to a phone in a pocket actually look like, but it's not obvious to me that measuring force rather than torque is unfair.
Parent is saying people want durability and better battery life and would gladly sacrifice thickness for it, not sacrifice all the things that iPhones have and those old Nokia's didn't.
I'd happily take the iphone 6, add 20-40% in thickness and weight, make it more durable and have a bigger battery, and let the phone sit flat on a table (as opposed to the camera sticking out like now) without having to mess with a case.
iPhones always outperform Androids in battery life in the real world IME (there are exceptions that probably break the rule, but with compromises elsewhere I'm not willing to make so I haven't bought those devices). My 6+ is living up to the "2 days" claim.
I absolutely wouldn't trade thinness, and more importantly, weight, for longer battery life.
The battery life is fine. The weight is good. The thinness allows me to add a case and still only have it be as thick as an iPhone 5.
For me, someone who actually paid for an off contract 6+, they made the right call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3Ds6uf0Yg&feature=youtu.be
The point of my response is that the test performed does not test against the complaint, it is a manipulation of the data (either through ignorance or malice) that presents data that may not truly imply the conclusion drawn by the article.
Phones are composed of many different materials of many different sizes and shapes at different points through its cross section. When looking for a "yield force" or "rupture force," as this article does, the three point test is effective ONLY for materials which are constant along the entirety of the test section or for parts where the loading condition is replicated exactly. When the loading condition may be unknown or the sectional properties may vary along the length of the phone then the four point test is more appropriate as it will show you the bending moment that is required to induce yield/rupture and, more importantly, it will show you WHERE that point is.
Most people elsewhere in this thread note that the point of weakness appears to be at the volume buttons on this phone. The three point bending test where the phone is loaded in the center may or may not reveal this, but a proper four point bending test would. Proper analysis of the testing method, reported failure modes, and the testing data would reveal this.
I also take a little exception with the "70 lbs is what it takes to break four pencils" demonstration they do as it is misleading and not informational at all. Four pencils loaded with 70 lbs at what point? What is the geometry of the four pencils? Is it 2x2 square or 4x1 rectangular? Which direction is it loaded?
The whole article stinks of pseudo-science which is what you get when you have journalists conducting tests without consulting with a proper expert in the field.
The article notes that the three point test is the "standard" that Apple uses for this type of test as if it somehow makes that the appropriate test for this type of analysis. It does not.
With this type of test, it may have been able to show if the volume or SIM card slots create structure weak points.
tl;dr the point it's not the fact that it's metric, but that it's decimal.
"Not it's not quite the same"? What is not the same? Converting between metric units and English units? It's exactly the same if you're doing it right. Contrary to common belief, most engineering and science that is done using the English system doesn't use "eight pounds four ounces per foot per inch" or some other such silly unit. Consistent units are used based on the application. Are there instances where a conversion must be used? Certainly. Are these conversions any more complex than those used in the metric system? No.
Disagree? Then tell me how many liters of water are needed to fill a cubic meter of space without looking it up or writing it down. You can't? Then stop crying about having to divide by 12 to get to feet.
Only an idiot does unit conversions in their head.
Or every elementary school kid outside the few countries that still don't use the metric system as it's a pretty common exercise.
I probably shouldn't have answered as I'm pretty sure you're just trolling.
1000. I had the answer calculated in my head before I finished reading the sentence. I knew that conversion by heart before I was 10. Also as a grown-up my water usage is billed in cubic meters of water used per month.
This video is all you need to see why using imperial for anything is idiotic: http://youtu.be/EUpwa0je6_Y - this is a group of people who use imperial measures daily struggling with a basic arithmetic operation that any second grader could solve in metric.
Ugh. What's that in microtonne-millileagues?
I am sure that Apple will not let this issue just stand, although they will definitely work to minimize and downplay it publically, and a few months from now the next batch of iphones will have been stiffened and will be much better. One of the risks of being an early adopter and if you can hold off for a bit I'm sure you'll get a stronger phone.
Placing the phone between two flat blocks and applying pressure at the exact center (three-point-test) will NOT test for this specific issue.
Even then it should be pretty suspicious that in the test conducted, the new phones are at the bottom of the stiffness list.
On another front, the Apple response is textbook - Deny, Minimize, (deride the press), then grudgingly make changes even while insisting that none were needed to begin with. Expect the next lot of these phones to experience a sudden stiffening.
Is it a coincidence that the silicon cases for the 6 /6+ are stiff and fully wrap the back vs the bumper design they used for previous generations?
There are enough actual things here to criticize Apple for. No need to create conspiracy theories
All 10,000,000 won't dare to test the bending and would try to avoid conditions (don't keep in pockets, buy thicker cases etc) that will lead to bending..
Steve Jobs was a jerk, yes. It does not follow from this that Apple as a whole will necessarily lie about damage reports.
Yes and... that was correct? Every other phone suffers from the same antenna attenuation if you enclose it completely in your hands. But because it's Apple, some news outlets saw a chance to make some pageviews by creating another scandal.
The "antennagate" crap was roughly equivalent to people complaining that a TV won't show any image at all if you set it up facing the wall, and writing lots of grandiose articles about how Apple TV doesn't deliver on its promise in all sorts of common circumstances, etc.
But if you held it with your left hand, you could create a contact between the two antennas and things would freak out a bit. This is 1000% due to the design of the iPhone 4, and not an issue with other phones. It had nothing to do with "covering the entire antenna with your hand".
So who's wrong? Apple, for not considering this? Or a good 10/20% of the world for doing things with their left hands?
Moreover, the rate of things like phone bending is probably non-linear, because it will happen during the highest amount of applied bending force over the period of use, which probably doesn't happen every day. If the iPhone 6 plus is just enough weaker than other phones such that it bends more commonly under fairly common handling conditions for any phone then the result could be a LOT of bent phones.
I've seen several videos of people bending these phones and to be honest it looks like Apple has a problem. The phone seems to be much weaker than any device designed for that use environment should be.
Considering that Jobs went to great efforts to ensure that the original iPhone was rugged under normal but inadvised handling conditions (i.e. putting it in the same pocket as keys, thus the use of gorrila glass), I can't help but see this bendiness as a decided step backwards in the design philosophy of the iPhone line.
Phone Deformation Case Separation
-----------------------------------------------------
HTC One (M8) 70 lbs. 90 lbs.
Apple iPhone 6 70 lbs. 100 lbs.
Apple iPhone 6 Plus 90 lbs. 110 lbs.
LG G3 130 lbs. 130 lbs.
Apple iPhone 5 130 lbs. 150 lbs.
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 150 lbs. 150 lbs.
Secondly, they applied that force for 30 seconds and got significant deformation. I'm fairly sure that, given more time, they'd reach the less significant deformation reported and shown by others, with less force.
However just playing devil's advocate: 9 returns to Apple (assuming that figure is true) is absolutely trivial relative to the units shipped.
I think it will be interesting to see where we stand in 6 months time. Will we see tons more phones return?
Non-ECC memory is more likely to get corrupted than ECC memory, but that doesn't mean that every single person who uses a computing device should be using ECC memory. Just because one thing is quantifiably less robust than something else is meaningless without a concept of "how robust does it need to be?"
Obviously the company thinks the phones have sufficient tolerances. A few people on the Internet have posted firsthand accounts that they think proves that the phones are inadequate. A much larger group of people on the Internet who don't like the company that makes the phones practically salivate over these sorts of events, and have been making sure that absolutely everyone who reads any tech forums is HIGHLY AWARE that this is a very important thing that we should all know and care about very, very deeply. Journalists of course will write about this stuff because many of them interpret their job as writing about whatever people are talking about.
Which brings us to the present, in which the only truth that anyone can point to is: no one actually knows if this is actually a problem or not. The only way to answer that question is to wait and see how many returns there are due to breakage. For people who care about truth, well, that's the truth, boring as it may be. In a few months we'll find out if a big company might make less money because somebody should've used a bigger number on a spreadsheet. Exciting! On the other hand, for people who care about arguing about things on the Internet, well, to hell with them, honestly.
Things that are stronger generally tend to last better under use by humans or non-humans, but whether you can bend it with your hands is not a good benchmark. But if it bends in your pocket when you're not intentionally stressing it for the benefit of your YouTube audience, that's more troubling.
The average human male can't even bench press their own weight. 500lb of force is in elite boxing range. You'd basically have to be an Olympic level boxer to be generating that kind of force "fairly easily".
Can a human generate power easily in that range? Maybe if you jumped on your phone from a 2 story building, or had amazing squats and dropped the weights on the phone. But no sane company would design their daily-use general purpose smartphone for those kinds of circumstances.
To give you an idea of what human strength actually looks like here's a paper on hand strength.
http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/70/7/2/swanson.pdf
70lbs is just between the grip strength of a woman and a man.
150lbs is over both.
There are entire categories of human-sized movements that can generate over 70lbs of force. There are surprisingly few that can generate at or over 150. You have to really want to be doing it and you have to be body builder strong.
Stepping on your phone can easily generate twice your body weight in force. While running a heal strike can easily be three times your body weight. Hopping on one foot can go beyond that. http://thebodymechanic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/giandol... http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFo...
You might argue that's not what we are talking about, but a phone in your back pocket could easily be subjected to more than your body weight when sitting (flopping?) down on a wooden chair.
PS: One of the classic cellphone tests is driving a truck over the thing. For courtiers it's not uncommon for someone to drive over your phone and generally rugged phones can easily service that.
Personally, I'll be getting a rigid case that covers the back and sides.
Most cell-phone "rigid" cases are less rigid than the phone's own case, so they only afford protection against scratches and impacts, not bending.
Who puts their phone into their back pocket? Why would you do that? Is it because it doesn't look as good to have it in your front pocket?
Because I sure as hell wouldn't put something that I spent >$200 on, that isn't designed to be sat on, in my back pocket.
If you count a 50% difference as "performs similarly" I have some dollar bills I'd like to sell you for $1.50 each.
From specs to hardware build the iPhone 6 just seems really behind the curve and very "blah".
The iPhone 5 was definitely a class leading phone in the hand before this test, feeling like a beautiful instrument. This test is proving it too is a fantastically put together device from a durability POV.
The 6 is very ho hum and I'm adding this to my list of ho hum things about it. It's not a bad phone, but not a great, class leading one in any way either.
I never really thought I'd see the day that a Korean phone designed by a completely anonymous corporate industrial design drone really beat the socks off of Apple's offering, and yet it appears to have happened this year.
All that being said, #bendgate is seriously overblown, just like antenna-gate. This is most likely a desire to hit Apple where it hurts the most, image, in order to extract free stuff/lower price/whatever like what happened last time with antenna-gate.
Obviously people see what they want to see, but: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8559/iphone-6-and-iphone-6-plu...
I'm glad to see it's doing well in the javascript benchmarks at least. Speaks highly of Apple's nitro engine.
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm
Based on our extensive Lab tests and measurements, the Galaxy Note 4 is the Best performing Smartphone display that we have ever tested. It matches or breaks new records in Smartphone display performance for: Highest Absolute Color Accuracy, Highest Screen Resolution, Infinite Contrast Ratio, Highest Peak Brightness, Highest Contrast Rating in Ambient Light, and the smallest Brightness Variation with Viewing Angle. Its Color Management capability provides multiple Color Gamuts – a major advantage that is not currently provided by any of the other leading Smartphones. The Galaxy Note 4 delivers uniformly consistent all around Top Tier display performance: it is the first Smartphone display to ever get all Green (Very Good to Excellent) Ratings in all test and measurement categories (except one Yellow for a Brightness Variation with Average Picture Level) since we started the Display Technology Shoot-Out article Series in 2006, an impressive achievement for a display. The Galaxy Note 4 has again raised the bar for top display performance up by another notch.
It's not like the iPhone 6 is a bad phone. If it were an Android device it would be considered an above average to a good in the field. But it's not, it's an iPhone and expectations are that it should come out as class leading. Which it isn't along most measures to date.
Multiple color gamuts—does the phone's screen actually extend well past sRGB, or did they just discover perceptual color mapping?
The compact camera market went through a spec-obsessive phase, and it resulted in 14+ megapixel compact cameras that struggled with anything less than direct sunlight. My 12 megapixel dSLR sounds weaker spec-wise, but works better in every lighting situation—even this aging piece of kit gives me pleasing images at ISO 5,000, well past its design limits.
There's a lot more to design than stuffing in faster CPUs, more RAM, and more screen and camera pixels.
The Anandtech link above shows the new iPhones basically among the leaders in every category. The displaymate reviews extend that. How you spin that into merly above average and last years quality is beyond me.
"Based on our extensive Lab tests and measurements, the iPhone 6 Plus is the Best performing Smartphone LCD display that we have ever tested."
See comparison to SGS5 in Geekbench 3: http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-content/phoneimages/iPhone-...
This really isn't true. A rudimentary "Hello World" app, maybe, but all of the common apps that are being run are heavily multithreaded.
Even an app that just uses stock/fairly common libs (like AFNetworking) is going to be multithreaded by virtue of those things alone.
Multi-core performance is critical in the iOS ecosystem, single-core is hardly a concern anymore.
WE'RE SORRY
You need to update your Flash Player
Morons.
(If anyone from Apple reads this don't let store Managers abuse their position; you lose sales, and employee store moral goes out the window. You can guess which store it is from my name. Don't take my version of the story. Verify the incident with other employees, I don't think anyone would forget--it happened feb 1, 2013, and "The Manager" was Greg?)
And yes, virtually any corporation works somewhat like an army unit. Nothing strange about that.
They were set on allowing people to believe that a structural defect is only available for out of warranty service until the issue got enough attention.
(of course, under normal usage it's very unlikely that a modern battery will swell, but it's not impossible)
If you look at most of the user damage photos the phone bends towards the top end where the button cut-outs weaken it. The phone did fail around the buttons as well but it's still bent in the middle from the tests. It appears their setup didn't stress it where the problems are occurring.
My estimation would be if you placed a load equidistant between the top of the phone and the middle, stressing the buttons area specifically, you would see a large difference in performance between models. The pocket issue seems to be "bending over" the top of the phone, not applying point loads across the length of the body.
The iPhone6 has a weak spot for torque at about 1/3 of the way from the top where there are some buttons. This test didn't stress that as aggressively as it could have. I suspect that it would perform 20-30% worse if you loaded it at the weak point.
The real issue here is that the phone both grew in length and was reduced in strength at the same time. That means that actions which previously didn't approach the elastic deformation limit of the phone now are. No change in behavior => change in result especially one with negative outcomes is going to get people riled up.
This whole thing is stupid. I have an iPhone 6 and it just barely fit comfortably in my front pocket. If it's just a bit off I find it awkward and uncomfortable.
I would love to see tests involving the real people who are bending their phones in their pockets. a) to measure the forces in their pockets and b) to see how they can stand that sort of discomfort.
Edit: I'll be specific. When I am standing the phone fits fine in my jeans. It's not great when I try and sit. In some positions it's ok. But in my head I was implying that if it's uncomfortable, I take it out of my pocket. The 6 is definitely the limit of any phone I'd buy.
With regard to a weak point, the phone would bend there first in these tests if such a thing existed. That's how weak points work.
For him, it's uncomfortable to put his iPhone 6 in his pockets, and he wonders how much discomfort people are putting up with that is causing their phone to bend in their pockets.
Or at least thats how I understood it.
My wife and I stopped in the Apple store today, and she saw the 6 and 6+ for the first time. She has a 4s (4.5") vs the iP6 @ 5.4" is quite large by comparison. "Nope, too big. I want the same size as mine but that thin" was all she had to say about it. It's a bit sad that her 4s is starting to show its age, and instead of a 6 she's likely get a 5s instead.
I think a lot of people are wishing for a 5-sized 6. I'm hoping my 5 will last two more years and that Apple will have a new release by then that's < 5".
And while the iphone 6 bend video on youtube has almost 40 million hits now, the unbox therapy user who uploaded it hits less than 500.000 views on average for their other videos. I'm willing to believe that 40 million views on youtube can be monitized to pay for more than an iphone 6, but I'm not so sure about the 2-300k, so it seems like quite the investment to go around breaking phones.
If an ad plays on 1/10 videos, and each ad makes the person 0.1 cent its still (30 million * 0.1 * 0.1) / 100 = 3 thousand dollars. Now take into account the added subscribers this adds which will make all future videos more profitable, and that I'm probably underestimating ad revenue, it is worth it.
If you compare the thickness of the material in an iPhone 5 vs 6 casing, I'd bet on the latter being somewhat thinner. If that picture of the iPhone 5 is after 150lbs were applied to it, I don't see much "case separation", only a slight bend. It could probably take a bit more force before something catastrophic happened. So it is possible that those used to the robustness of an iPhone 5 are the ones bending their new iPhone 6s.
It would be a much more time consuming, expensive and complex test, but I think I'd trust the results much more than what I'm seeing here.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people place the phone with the screen in, so that it would bend toward the screen not away from it. The results could be significantly different in that direction, especially since the major mode of failure was the screen separating from the case.
The phones most resistent to bending in their length axis have back sides that are curved. That makes the backside contribute to the strength of the phone in the bending direction. Flat backsides will bend easily, so the relatively tiny vertical sides (and any ribs inside the phone, but those are rare due to lack of room) are the main parts contributing to strength. That's why the iPhone's weakest point is near a slot in those sides.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Windshield_Pitting_Epi...
He focuses the force on the lateral side of the iPhone in order to bend it.
This is probably not very representative of having your phone in your pocket as Apple says but makes for an impressive video that gives you views(and money).
Anecdotaly I also seen it first hand.
Confirms that the new iPhones are much bendier than the old ones.
But seriously they didn't do the test properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3Ds6uf0Yg
I killed four phones to date simply by accidentally sitting down on them.
Stop sitting on your phone. Would you put your laptop of the edge of a chair and sit on it?
Uh.
Don't sit on them? Who does this?
(unboxing Z3 under water)
I think it implies being stuffed in pockets and left in the car (barring perhaps the most extreme climates), and perhaps certain types of drops, but not being sat on.
Not until now has putting a phone in your back pocket been "crazy." I recently upgraded from the iPhone 4 (which I had for 3 years) to the 6, and for the life time of iPhone 4 I've sat on it for extended hours and had it my back pocket. I currently do the same with the 6.
What I really think has happened here is this whole thing is being blown out of proportion because 1.) its Apple and 2.) they moved 10M units in a weekend (if they had 1% defect rate, thats 100,000 angry tweets, status, youtube videos and blog posts).
FWIW the only videos I've seen of the phone actually bending are the non-measured ones when someone applies an inane amount of force with their hands trying to destroy the thing (with an Li-On battery inside!)
There have been other situations where I have unconsciously put my phones through pretty intense pressure, not realizing it was under me where I sit down or sleeping with it and it getting stuck in between mattresses/cushions/pillows whatever (although for other reasons I have been trying to not go to sleep with my phone anymore, leaving it plugged in somewhere else).