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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3Ds6uf0Yg&feature=youtu.be
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.