Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Listen your morons, I have eleven engineering degrees, with PhDs in Mathematics, Materials Science, Stress Incumbination Testing, Radio Refractive Analysis, Metal Returbiration, and Unilateral Phase Detractination.

The serious problem with the Consumer Reports test was their use of THE WRONG EQUIPMENT, they should have used Rockwell's latest smart phone test stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuhYd9L_d7w
 
I completely agree. These are awesome phones and I don't think the bendgate issue will affect sales significantly at all. Apple did a fantastic job. The people who decide to sit on their phones can face the consequences. But, they can't say they didn't see it coming. Who actually sits on their electronics?

I'm not directing this only at you only, but what's with this "sit on their phones" nonsense? People are just re-writing history. People are claiming that their iPhone 6 Plus bent in their front pocket. That's not "sitting on their phones."
 
Actually, sitting on the phone in pants is akin to applying a UDL. Mostly, across the span of an object, it's response to load is linear and you get a "linear" reaction......except in the case of the iphone which has this local weakness the the stress concentration is higher at the point in discussion, the reaction of the loading becomes non linear and you get a permanent deformation.

Obviously

Nope. Youre heading in the right direction but no one is pressing 90lbs of force on their phone while it's on their back pocket

If someone is that heavy then they should no better. Especially at close to 300lbs

And again where is the video of it deforming under normal use?
 
Listen your morons, I have eleven engineering degrees, with PhDs in Mathematics, Materials Science, Stress Incumbination Testing, Radio Refractive Analysis, Metal Returbiration, and Unilateral Phase Detractination.

The serious problem with the Consumer Reports test was their use of THE WRONG EQUIPMENT, they should have used Rockwell's latest smart phone test stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuhYd9L_d7w

Amazing!:D
 
Listen your morons, I have eleven engineering degrees, with PhDs in Mathematics, Materials Science, Stress Incumbination Testing, Radio Refractive Analysis, Metal Returbiration, and Unilateral Phase Detractination.

The serious problem with the Consumer Reports test was their use of THE WRONG EQUIPMENT, they should have used Rockwell's latest smart phone test stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuhYd9L_d7w

You have all that, and you're arguing with people on an Internet forum? Rrriiggghhhhttttttt
 
Listen your morons, I have eleven engineering degrees, with PhDs in Mathematics, Materials Science, Stress Incumbination Testing, Radio Refractive Analysis, Metal Returbiration, and Unilateral Phase Detractination.

The serious problem with the Consumer Reports test was their use of THE WRONG EQUIPMENT, they should have used Rockwell's latest smart phone test stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuhYd9L_d7w

LOL...good stuff.
 
No surprises here, actually.

Stupid old-era magazines (eg, Time) always do blow things out of the proportion, but because it's Time Magazine![/b] (or whatever) it always gets taken way too seriously. Same thing with CNN. Read headlines, and get your news somewhere else.
 
This is what you said: "Its not about the video guy, but about this..."

When in fact it's the exact same thing, with an attempt at an explanation, still speculatively since no additional tests are done. It's an analysis of that very YouTube clip.



How do you know that it does, that's not the point. YouTube guy demonstrates that it's possible to bend an iPhone with your hands given enough force (true for many small electronic devices). CR and Apple shows that it's likely not going to be an issue under normal use.



Either it is legit or it isn't, it can't be legit "to you". The details are speculations on what may well have happened, but it's not that interesting because no tests are involved at all, so it's one guys theory.
Next time please quote me completely. Thanks. Here for you again.
"Aha, and because It is directed "directly to the YouTube guy" and because the YouTube guy is a liar(?), in reality the phone doesn't bend(?) the article pointing to a possible "weak spot" can't be true and so it is just not possible that there is a "weak spot"? How do you know what the article says doesn't point to a real issue?
For me it's a legit theory and pointing to a real concern, which would also explain why the lab tests of Apple and CR (evenly distributed force) and the "hand beding tests" (force concentrated at one point/side) are showing different results and why it seems to be easier to bend the phone near the volume buttons. The metal reinforcement behind the volume buttons is too short, if the reinforcement would be longer, it would also be harder to deform it there. Can you disprove this hypothesis?"
The YouTube Video's guy just tried to prove that he can bend the phone with his hands. The article tries to explain why there might be a "weak spot" near the volume buttons, where the iPhone in the video cracked and where, by the way, it seems other iPhones are also vulnerable of bending/bent (like here e.g.: Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQxX_x3HTXQ + pictures of the iPhone https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/19935054/) How is that the exact same thing? ...
Furthermore, the Apple and CR tests didn't "show" that bending is not an issue under "normal use", they did just prove that if you apply force evenly distributed in the middle with a machine, and not in a real life scenario under certain circumstances, it will deform at a certain point (CR test 70/90lbs).
What these tests are not showing is what happens if you concentrate the force near that assumed "weak spot". So the article I quoted claims in a hypothesis that its easier to bend there because the inserted metal reinforcement is too short.
And since the Apple and CR tests do not prove anything in this regard, but there is a corresponding hypothesis, this hypothesis is very well very interesting. Again, can you disprove it?
 
Last edited:
Here's a summary of the design flaw as I see it:

Here is the weak point as viewed externally.
View attachment 497845

From iFixit's teardown, here are the internal reenforcements.
View attachment 497846

Note that Apple chose to use a series of short steel plates in lieu of a single continuous steel plate. Had they chose the latter, the phone would not have pivot points at the ends of each plate. The meager reenforcements are "good enough," save a few cents, and make for a slightly lighter phone. A continuous steel angle or I-beam could have been used without altering the size of the phone and would have resulted in a virtually unbendable device. They probably used a formula to predict the cost of iPhone replacements vs. increased manufacturing costs, yet Apple's reputation was not factored in. It's a typical American business mistake - even Apple is not immune.

As a result of Apple's flawed design (under a test that doesn't even exploit the weak discontinuity at the volume buttons), the competition is about 150% more resistant to bending:
View attachment 497847

In only a few days, we already have 9-10 reported iPhone bends. Stress is additive for aluminum, so with time phones will grow more prone to bending. Figure that for several years, each person with a bent iPhone will show it to everyone he knows, and factor in the social media amplification, and the result is irrepairable harm to Apple's reputation as a maker of high end quality products.

The diminished reputation occures with people see others with bent phones. Whether it is "stupid" to carry a phone in one's pocket is irrelevant, since all that matters is what other people see. Take a cashier who sees mobile phones all day long: if he sees more bent iPhones, he'll reach a conclusion. This is why a rigid phone is so important to Apple's reputation. Surely any Apple defender wants Apple to do well - I know I do as a longtime Mac user.

This is an excellent post. My only question is, do they really save a few cents by not using a single longer reinforcement beam? Seems like they have to add extra screws and more mount-points to the aluminium chassis in order to do it that way. Maybe there was another element that was taken into consideration?

It is pretty obvious why he phone bends right below the volume buttons looking at the inside of the device. It looks like there is not only the natural weakness of the button cutouts, but there is a pivot point due to a piece of the steel beam ending right where the button holes end.

All very strange decisions looking at it as an outsider.
 
You have all that, and you're arguing with people on an Internet forum? Rrriiggghhhhttttttt

What people don’t understand is that the iPhone 6 uses only four non reversible tremupipes for side buffering and the lack of a differential girdle spring was a huge mistake. Sinusodial smart phones with an integrated gram meter have proven to withstand 4th dimensional stresses than a standard lotis-ol-deltoild winding design, but that is another discussion. In the end and to utilize the current iPhone 6 design, Apple must integrate panendermic staters to prevent upended score motion.
 
What people don’t understand is that the iPhone 6 uses only four non reversible tremupipes for side buffering and the lack of a differential girdle spring was a huge mistake. Sinusodial smart phones with an integrated gram meter have proven to withstand 4th dimensional stresses than a standard lotis-ol-deltoild winding design, but that is another discussion. In the end and to utilize the current iPhone 6 design, Apple must integrate panendermic staters to prevent upended score motion.

Your talking nonsense man! You need at least two femiendermic staters to prevent the upended score motion! Where were you taught this rubbish?!
 
What people don’t understand is that the iPhone 6 uses only four non reversible tremupipes for side buffering and the lack of a differential girdle spring was a huge mistake. Sinusodial smart phones with an integrated gram meter have proven to withstand 4th dimensional stresses than a standard lotis-ol-deltoild winding design, but that is another discussion. In the end and to utilize the current iPhone 6 design, Apple must integrate panendermic staters to prevent upended score motion.

Finally some real physics.
 
What people don’t understand is that the iPhone 6 uses only four non reversible tremupipes for side buffering and the lack of a differential girdle spring was a huge mistake. Sinusodial smart phones with an integrated gram meter have proven to withstand 4th dimensional stresses than a standard lotis-ol-deltoild winding design, but that is another discussion. In the end and to utilize the current iPhone 6 design, Apple must integrate panendermic staters to prevent upended score motion.


... but you neglect to account for the potential impact of discombobulation with respect to longitudinal string expansion
 
Enough of all the verbal masturbation. It's over, gone, just stop.

So, I say the new iPads will have Sapphire Screens. Any takers? :apple:

Even thought the optics through Sapphire would be great and its scratch resistance is second only to diamond, my concern is Sapphire's brittleness (lack of flexibility) compared to glass (gorilla glass) might be a concern. If Apple can provide the best qualities of Sapphire with some amount of needed flexibility (and an antiglare coating from the factory), then I think it will be wonderful.
 
It's not an Apple product of old.

RIP Steve; I hope you cannot see what is happening to the company you rebuilt over the past 14 years..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.