Blogger Fraud, even?
Slate.com
Apple BendGate Truthers Smell a Media Plot
http://tinyurl.com/pxgybbq
Apple's iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus mobes do not bend out of shape quite as easily as was claimed by bloggers earlier this week, according - that is - to a more rigorous test carried out by Consumer Reports. The US product reviews outfit used its lab equipment to see if there were obvious design weaknesses in Apple's anodised …
What does the one thing have to do with the other?
The Slate article appears to be about some idiot who badly faked a video of bending the thing with his own hands. But that was following the initial reports — of it bending of its own volition during the course of a wedding, etc — so is itself a complete side issue to the bendability of the thing.
"The Slate article appears to be about some idiot who badly faked a video of bending the thing with his own hands."
Did he, though?
Yes, there are some time discrepancies in that video - but there also appear to be two iPhone boxes on the table to the right (his left) in some shots.
What may have happened is that after bending the first, and filming himself before and after talking about it, he then bent another to film the actual bending sequence - which would have resulted in the discrepancies. He probably didn't bother adjusting the time to avoid continuity errors because he wasn't making a Hollywood blockbuster.
Or just didn't think of doing it.
@thames Thanks for that link - wow, it bends much easier than I'd realised.
I love the way Apples denial machine is going overboard, such as this "only 9 complaints so far" malarkey. The more they do it, the stupider they look when a month or two down the line they have to issue the inevitable recall, as the cumulative effect of normal daily use hits home. Or some crappy support frame for it, the same way bumpers were issued when, dammit, those darn stupid users just kept on holding it wrong.
"I love the way Apples denial machine is going overboard, such as this "only 9 complaints so far" malarkey."
Hmm...
"With normal use, a bend in iPhone is extremely rare and through our first six days of sale, a total of nine customers have contacted Apple with a bent iPhone 6 Plus."
...because the other iPhones that have bent ceased working altogether, and their owners had to use a different phone to contact us.
Really?
So, because someone doesn't film everything in sequential order, that makes it fraud? Last I checked, that was just proper film making.
It's pretty clear what happened is he filmed the bend test first, then the conclusion ( which shows 1:59 ), then later films the intro. The time gap suggests he probably put the video together, and felt the intro he originally had wasn't cutting it. So, he refilmed it.
I especially find it funny, considering this guy is (was?) largely on Apples side. He massively down plays the fact that he bent the phone by hand ( the bending part is shown without cutting, so the rest doesn't matter. ), and even admits that it's his own phone. ( Though, he might have switched to a Moto X now... as shown in his followup video for the conspiracy theorists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3Ds6uf0Yg&feature=youtu.be which shows him bending the iphone 6 plus quite fast and easily actually. ) He does seem to dislike Apples comments on the matter though, and thinks they are downplaying the issue. ( Which of course, is exactly what Apple should do. You never want to scream the sky is falling regarding your own product. )
It would be much more interesting to see the bend numbers at various times: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, and 6 months. Of course, we have some time to go still for most of those, and at 6 months it will be closing in on being a moot point. ( Most Apple users update yearly instead of once every 2 or 3 years. )
Laboratory conditions strike again!
The problem with this test is that it doesn't appear to replicate the real-world conditions involved. The "bendgate" video showed uneven pressure being applied across a corner, which - unintentionally, I'm sure - is a more realistic representation of what would happen. A phone jammed in a front pocket, as reported at the start of the controversy, would be subjected to unequal pressure on one corner as its owner bent their leg to sit down and stand, or walk around. The problem is magnified if that corner is also the one with the controls, which present a significant weak spot.
The full cross-section of the phone is a great deal stronger than a partial section across the corner. Testing the full cross-section doesn't address the demonstrated failure.
The smaller phone is more robust due to the relative strength of the case material in cross-section. The larger phone is weaker. It's rare, but this bending issue obviously does happen, and it's a case of Apple apparently not realising that scaling the phone up without accounting for the square/cube law is asking for trouble.
Agree,
70lbs of pressure does not seem much. I have an LG G3 and I'm already looking at replacing the Circle case as the current one has already taken significant damage from being inserted and removed from close fitting front pocket, cycling when in said pocket, climbing over fences (and this from a 50 year old) I hate to think what would happen if my son had a iPhone 6.
Consumer Reports is a thoroughly trusted organisatiom with an 80-year history. There's zero evidence of corruption here.
If you're the sort of person that jumped to that conclusion then here are some more facts that may rock your world: man really did land on the moon, the Earth is round, Obama was born in Hawaii.
"Consumer Reports is a thoroughly trusted organisatiom..."
Have you ever wondered how a subscription based model can last so long without knowing but a handful of PEOPLE that buy a subscription? If it isn't people solely supporting them, who could it be...hmmm?
Also, what I did not know until now, is that they have apparently NEVER lost a lawsuit. Apparently, like Apple, they can do no wrong. How convenient for Apple's contributions advertising.
MyBackDoor, you can answer your own question by looking at the data on the Consumer Reports annual reports page, where you can also find tax returns and audited financial statements for Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. As an example, between 2012-06-01 and 2013-05-31, they had 234 M$ of subscription and newsstand sales. Do you expect to know all of their four million subscribers personally?
I still own mine. 10 years, 225,000 km and counting... will probably last another 100,000. <shrug> I often worry about having a phone in my pocket and leaning up against something causing the screen to crack or bend or whatever... ah well. I hate iOS, so note 4 here I come. Lots of fanboi downvotes in the comments on this article :)
"This lab test is brought to you by the words 'Apple' and 'Dollar', and by a very large number indeed."
You might want to do some research.
Consumers Union, the outfit behind Consumer Reports, refuses to accept money from any maker of any of the products they test. They will not even accept test samples from manufacturers--they buy everything they test retail. The magazine itself contains no advertising. They have shown themselves willing to go up against car manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and other wealthy, entrenched interests.
Complain about the test methodology if you like. Criticize the test apparatus if you like. But saying Apple bought them off just makes you look profoundly ignorant.
The Consumer Association in the UK is similar - its monthly magazine is called 'Which?'. It has no advertising, and is financed by its subscribers.
They test all sorts of consumer goods, and they explain their methods which often involve a lot of real testing in controlled conditions. Recommendations are made, but the results of the tests and specifications of all tested products are always shown in a matrix.
Its subscribers give Which? a group of consumers with varied and broad interests who are willing to participate in surveys. They know that this information will not be used to sell stuff to them. Instead, the information will be processed and given back to them.
Such surveys include customer service from retailers, or the reliability of products.
It would be very difficult for any one company to 'game' these surveys, due to the range of products and services the subscribers are quizzed about.
Downvote me all you want, but the tests that were done on the device were not in any way 'real world' examples of the actual stresses put on a phone in the pocket like people are claiming.
I could prove an egg cannot be broken by testing it's innate strength to support weight, with positive results.
And yes, call me cynical if you wish but I don't believe any organisation, anywhere ever in the world, is free from corruption, self-interest, bribery or suchlike.
The reality is it's not twice as strong - if you suffered a force sufficient to break the iPhone (i.e. heavy fall onto a hard surface) it would probably be sufficient to break both.
Get Applecare Plus which now also includes accidental damage - up to 2 replacements over 2 years for a £55 excess on a £500-700 phone - so assume even if you do drop it into a pint or out of a window you can get it fixed / replaced by the manufacturer. Think it's about a £70 extra but over 2 years that's not even £3 a month.
Quote: "Open invitation to Fandroids"...
I suspect all of you, consumer reports and the people who are reporting bending it are right.
Consumer reports (and your less scientific test) can be summarized as "you are holding it wrong". It clearly does not bend if:
1. You apply force in the middle
2. If you apply force evenly
3. If you apply force at a right angle to the phone
This does not mean that it does not have a specific structural weekness which allows it to bend if you twist it, apply force to a corner, etc.
>You can be certain that Apple will wriggle out of repairing / replacing these sub-standard efforts.
How do you square your assertion with the results of customer service surveys conducted by the UK's Consumer Association (see above), which, like Consumer Reports, is subscription funded?
i.e 'Links please'.
>You can be certain that Apple will wriggle out of repairing / replacing these sub-standard efforts.
Yeah, Apple never recall products or admit issues with batteries or power buttons or anything like that, so bending would fit into this category. Except of course if you have an iPhone 5 for power buttons and batteries or a 5s for battery.
You can be certain that Apple will wriggle out of repairing / replacing these sub-standard efforts. They will invoke some tiny-print sub-clause in their warranty agreement that absolves them of any blame for poor design or manufacturing flaws.
They obviously discovered that their prototypes were too expensive to make and too heavy to sell, so decided to compromise the mechanical rigidity of the product in an effort to maximise their profits - after all, Apple fanbois are notoriously uncritical and very defensive of their favourite products!
In this first week, I've seen these bricked by flawed updates, killed by defective batteries (they partially charge once than fail to re-charge), bent, with cracked screens straight out of the box, and just simply not working from new....
Apple need to recall these things, admit they got it very wrong, and ship a new product that addresses all the flaws as soon as possible. This might allow them to retain some of their market share....
I don't know about this bending issue, but apple typically (at least in my experience) don't quibble, they just check the fault is real and then fix or replace the phone. No drama. For my iphone5 (no AppleCare), that's a new screen, then a new unit. As a side issue, it does raise questions about the durability of the things.
"...Apple... ... ...defective batteries..."
I just bought a Microsoft Surface 2 (because it was on sale, cheap). Brand new factory sealed box.
The battery is not detected. Did all the proposed fixes offered up by the 'net. The battery is still not detected. Brand new. Factory sealed. Apparently it's a fairly common problem. The website (which is horrid by the way, somebody at MS should hang), almost immediately went to "We'll send you a replacement."
Microsoft, not Apple.
You can be certain that Apple will wriggle out of repairing / replacing these sub-standard efforts. They will invoke some tiny-print sub-clause in their warranty agreement that absolves them of any blame for poor design or manufacturing flaws.
Weird, that. I've been using Apple kit in 3 different countries and for the few problems I've had I always had instant replacements. Literally walk in, walk out replacements, without the need of having any debate whatsoever with staff (unlike some other places where they try a game of legal bullshit bingo until they realise I pretty much know most consumer laws backwards). Have you actually ever owned Apple equipment or are you just repeating someone else's nonsense?
I am far from being an Apple fanboi and I have certainly been spending less with them over the last couple of years but I wholly concur. From a customer service perspective regarding the small number of hardware issues we've had as a family, Apple has been excellent, pretty much replacing things no questions asked.
My experience is that Apple stands behinds its kit.
Metal bends before it breaks, plastic doesn't. Thin metal is weaker than thick plastic. News at 11!
Materials technology is at its limit when designers insist on thinner, smaller and lighter.
In the bike industry they say "You can have Light, Strong or Cheap. Pick two.".
I chose plastic too, a Moto 4G with rubber back plate. Robust is how you make it.
"Metal bends before it breaks, plastic doesn't."
What polymer (and with what fillers) are you referring to? Most materials, except the most brittle, will show elastic deformation (fully reversible bending and/or stretching) before failure; even glass and ceramics will flex a bit before cracking. Many metals and polymers will show additional plastic deformation (irreversible bending and/or stretching) before failure.
Most unreinforced polymers (the cheap polymers of cell phone cases) tend to show very large plastic deformation phases of their stress-strain curves, though there are some highly oriented polymers that fail abruptly with little plastic deformation. Such polymers - e.g., Kevlar - have no room for their molecular chains to untangle and stretch. Likewise, extra-cheap polymers with a lot of powder filler might fail with little permanent deformation.
See pages 1 and 2 for a primer on the stress-strain curves and the failure modes of different materials.
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/sgleixner/PRIME/Sports/Class%203_4/Class%203_4_polymer_mech_prop.pdf
Thanks for the link Cray, very interesting stuff and a good point from an engineering perspective. I am merely paraphrasing the test shown in the article, the plastic phones bend and break at the same time/force, ergo they don't bend until they break from the point of view of this test.
The Consumer Reports verdict was "We expect that any of these phones should stand up to typical use". That was after laboratory tests, carried out by qualified professionals, for a long-established organisation that would have no business if it were believed to offer unreliable reports to consumers.
I'm confident the random commenters and bloggers of the internet will somehow have greater insight than the professionals.
And, yes, it also found the Samsung twice as able to stand up to atypical usage.
I wonder what happens with a lower force - say 30 lbs applied repeatedly over a week?
Probably, nothing.
Possibly, metal fatigue and a sudden fracture. Aluminium alloys can be vulnerable to that, witness the ill-fated Comet airliner. But it takes a lot of stress cycles to make this happen. In a week - very very unlikely. Years, slightly more likely.
It's not as simple as looking at the center point load. you need to consider the size of the device too.
the bending force is likely to be higher with the greater leverage from a bigger device.
for example a 1 penny piece may well have a deformation stress of less than 150lbs but it not going to bend in your pocket. a metal ruler more so.