Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think you will find he said exactly what you said, that employees DONT recommend a case.



Yes, dropping it is not normal use, but I think they imply that the iPhone 4 will withstand a lot more than what previous generations could, nobody is saying they can drop their phone and it will be unscathed just that the marketing suggests that the glass should be more resistant to the same damage you may have witnessed in previous models or past designs.

No. He said they recommend against a case. Thats not true.
 
Here's the difference, did any of those drops make your phone unusable or dangerous to use? No, they just had a cosmetic affect.

If you drop an iPhone 4 and the back glass breaks the phone is no longer safe to use. This is a design flaw pure and simple. Apple knows this and it's why they are replacing most of them for free. This replacement is an admission of guilt and I'll bet that this case either wins or gets settled out of court. Apple probably won't dare let it go to trial.

It can't be a design flaw because dropping phones don't qualify as normal use.
 
For example, you don't understand the nature of high speed trains and helicopters. In both cases, they do indeed see a large amount of debris that hits the windshield at a good speed. But the concern is NOT whether the windshield shatters. They could use plastic if they didn't want it to shatter. The issue is how HARD the surface is, i.e. scratch resistant. Sand, dust, and even small rocks aren't going to crack it, but they WILL create hundreds of thousands of tiny scratches, making the visibility of the windshield slowly degrade in quality. So they use something that may shatter easier, but will not scratch.

On the other hand, small aircraft (C-150, C-172, etc etc) do not see a lot of small debris hit the windshield, at least not as much as the other two vehicles. In this case they use plexiglass because it is less brittle. It may scratch easier(not as hard), but that isn't as much of a problem.

I was going to post exactly this. The iPhone4 glass is very good when it comes to scratches. My iPhone & iPhone3g had a lot of little scratches in the glass (I don't use a case and carry them in my front pocket). My iPhone4 has been GREAT, not a single scratch, looks beautiful.

Eventually I shattered my iPhone3g glass by dropping it on tile, my fault, I replaced it, no problem. The problem is not really dropping the phone but how it hits. If it hits on the edge, there is a good change it will shatter. Why? Because the edges of the glass, where it is cut, contain microscopic cracks; but apply pressure to them, and they can quickly break. Where as if the phone drops more flat or doesn't hit on the edge, it is much less likely to break, or suffer any damage.

The glass on high speed trains and helicopters need to be scratch and ding resistant. In those applications the edges of the windows are encased in metal to prevent debris from hitting and edge causing cracks. Inside the metal cavity is rubber to prevent vibrational cracking. The edges of the glass on the iPhone4 is more exposed, and thus more likely to get hit, causing cracks.

As many pointed out; it is very scratch resistant because it is strong. But this also makes it brittle; but it is one or the other, you really cannot have both.

No where does Apple claim that it doesn't shatter, or that it shatters less then the previous generation iPhone. They say it is stronger, and in some ways, it is. Just that this person is ASSUMING that it means won't shatter; doesn't mean he is right. Put me on the Jury and he doesn't stand a chance. Put any materials person on the Jury and he won't win.
 
83 positive votes for this article?

She dropped a piece of glass from more than three feet, and it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke?

Man, what are people thinking?
 
maybe he needs to read into exactly what "stiffness" and "hardness" means. My engineering classes on materials tell me he has no case consider neither of these terms dictate their ability to further withstand being dropped haha.
 
83 positive votes for this article?

She dropped a piece of glass from more than three feet, and it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke?

Man, what are people thinking?

That's the problem: people are NOT thinking ... and than they want someone else to pay the bill if something breaks because of their not thinking


maybe he needs to read into exactly what "stiffness" and "hardness" means. My engineering classes on materials tell me he has no case consider neither of these terms dictate their ability to further withstand being dropped haha.

No engineering class needed - common sense should tell everyone that 'stiffer and harder than plastic' and scratch resistent does not mean unbreakable - heaven's sake, its glass - and everybody who bought the iPhone knew it and should have know that glass breaks if you drop it.
 
She dropped a piece of glass from more than three feet, and it's the manufacturer's fault that it broke?

Not just any piece of glass but aluminosilicate glass - the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed trains. Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic
 
As long as there are morons there will be reasons for lawsuits. Now we have to wonder who the moron is, and the plaintiff seems to be a pretty likely suspect. :rolleyes: Apple may be awash in cash but does it really make sense to sue every time you break a nail?:confused:
 
Not just any piece of glass but aluminosilicate glass - the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed trains. Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic

stiff and hard are good things - but it still can break - you can even make the windshield of a helicopter break.
 
Glass can break ????

i see a recall happening, on a serious note i didn't even know it was possible to break glass thats the last time i drop my iphone on anything. :p
 
Neither the designer nor the customer was thinking

That's the problem: people are NOT thinking ....

Phones get dropped - that's been a fact of life since we moved away from the wall-mounted crank phones. The old AT&T plastic phones were nearly indestructible - my mother would sometimes crack open walnuts by hitting it with the handpiece of the AT&T phone.

The first case of "not thinking" was Apple in once again putting form over function and making the phone Shiny™ rather than useful and durable.

The second case of "not thinking" is when the customer buys the glass phone. It's glass - you drop it and it will break.

My old Samsung EVDO smartphone has been dropped a number of times - and other than a few scuffs on its composite casing it's fine. A couple of months ago I knocked it out of its holster while going down the concrete stairs in our parking garage. It bounced on a couple of the concrete steps, and beat me down to the next landing. It was fine - although it got a few more scuffs.
 
Heck, I have a Tag Heuer watch with a mineral crystal that is supposed to be 'the most durable crystal on any watch'. Supposedly Rolex uses mineral crystals because they are 'durable' and 'scratch-proof'.

It slipped off a stack of mail as I was leaving home and fell onto the ceramic floor on our foyer and shattered. A 'durable and scratch-proof crystal' shattered. I took it in for repair and they said that it's the most durable crystal in any watch but if it falls the wrong way on to the wrong surface it'll shatter or craze/crack... Dookie happens... I was so bummed. The watch was less than 3 months old. Heuer would not even consider covering it under any warranty.

If they drop an iPhone and it cracks then perhaps it's time to ream your spawn about how to use their expensive toys...
 
Sounds like they're trying to bring a class action lawsuit against the laws of physics- specifically gravity and impulse. I really don't see the logic here.

I love how these fools don't understand the scientific relationship between stiffness/hardness and shatter resistance. Usually, the harder and stiffer something is, the greater its susceptibility to shattering when struck the "wrong" way and with enough force. Carbon fiber is a prime example. Have these morons not watched hockey games or an F1 race? Yeah, carbon shatters like a little wimp when enough resistive force is going against it.

I can imagine the idiotic statements now..."Um, judge, the glass on the iP4 can actually shatter."

One area where consumers DO have legitimate "beef" with Apple over the advertising of the iP4 glass is its overrated scratch resistance. Gorilla Glass is enormously overrated. All smartphones with Gorilla Glass, that I've owned/played with (Droid, Droid 2, Dell Streak, all Galaxy S phones), are pretty easy to scratch.
 
Heck, I have a Tag Heuer watch with a mineral crystal that is supposed to be 'the most durable crystal on any watch'. Supposedly Rolex uses mineral crystals because they are 'durable' and 'scratch-proof'.

Rolex and all high-end watchmakers use synthetic sapphire, not mineral crystal. Mineral crystal is not as hard or as scratch resistant as synthetic sapphire, and nothing, aside from real diamond is.

Still, synthetic sapphire is susceptible to cracks and shattering. I've owned an IWC with a clearly scratched sapphire crystal (see 2nd scan at "6" o'clock position). The seller had informed me that it was scratched. However, in my many years of watch collecting, I've never personally scratched or damaged synthetic sapphire...probably because I take reasonable care of expensive goods.
 

Attachments

  • 3531_009.jpg
    3531_009.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 59
  • 3531_003.jpg
    3531_003.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 69
This is not a question of whether someone would reasonably expect the claims to be true or not when buying. It's a question of deceptive advertising, which exists because companies long claimed products could do things they could not. In my mind, this is definitely a strong case. They specifically state the glass has been treated to be harder and stronger than plastic, and plastic things usually don't break when you drop them. Unfortunately, like all other class-actions, this will end with a settlement (meaningless to everyone except the lawyers) instead of a company admitting wrong-doing publicly.
 
Phones get dropped - that's been a fact of life since we moved away from the wall-mounted crank phones. The old AT&T plastic phones were nearly indestructible - my mother would sometimes crack open walnuts by hitting it with the handpiece of the AT&T phone.

The first case of "not thinking" was Apple in once again putting form over function and making the phone Shiny™ rather than useful and durable.

The second case of "not thinking" is when the customer buys the glass phone. It's glass - you drop it and it will break.

My old Samsung EVDO smartphone has been dropped a number of times - and other than a few scuffs on its composite casing it's fine. A couple of months ago I knocked it out of its holster while going down the concrete stairs in our parking garage. It bounced on a couple of the concrete steps, and beat me down to the next landing. It was fine - although it got a few more scuffs.

So, all iP4 buyers are "not thinking" according to you. Thanks for insulting thousands of members here. We all appreciate the passing jab from an anonymous guy on the interwebs.

You have a strange and perverse idea that "function" and the ability for a high-end smartphone to take a drop are one and the same. A smartphone isn't designed with the "function" of being dropped. I suppose that a mug or any dish made out of glass or ceramic instead of plastic or steel is just "form over function."

Guess what? I've NEVER dropped a phone. Just because you are clumsy, it doesn't mean that everyone else is.
 
This is not a question of whether someone would reasonably expect the claims to be true or not when buying. It's a question of deceptive advertising, which exists because companies long claimed products could do things they could not. In my mind, this is definitely a strong case. They specifically state the glass has been treated to be harder and stronger than plastic, and plastic things usually don't break when you drop them. Unfortunately, like all other class-actions, this will end with a settlement (meaningless to everyone except the lawyers) instead of a company admitting wrong-doing publicly.

So you are another one of those folks who can't logically compute the simple idea that stiffness/hardness DOES NOT EQUAL shatter resistance/unbreakability?

I'm glad that you aren't a judge.
 
iphone 4

I run with my ip4, cycle with it, drop it, accidentally submerged it in water. I've done these things many times. I've dropped it from 4 to 5 feet on a concrete floor. Because of the YOUTUBE video, I thought it would shatter.

Still works.

If it breaks, I'll buy a new one. The thing is not expensive for what it does, an amazing microcomputer. I'm not going to live in fear. I'm going to use the thing, every day, all the time. It's a huge breakthrough.

For the first computer I had in 1986, I bought a special table that did not allow vibration to make sure the hard drive would not crash. We've come a long way.....
 
This is the bottom line, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, and any esoteric anecdote or experience that any Joe Schmoe consumer brings up is irrelevant:

Can the claimant prove that Apple's glass is NOT 20 times stiffer/30 times harder than plastic, as the marketing states? If the plaintiff cannot, then this case should be laughed out of court because Apple made no other official statement.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.