It goes hand in hand clearly
People don’t buy the products without being very satisfied
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Consumer Reports Ranks iPhone X Below iPhone 8 Because of Durability and Battery Life
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It goes hand in hand clearly
People don’t buy the products without being very satisfied
Why, because they criticize apple? Legions of followers read and respond to CR, so they have significant impact when a negative review comes from them. Just look how Apple responded with the bad battery report in the MBP, they quickly issued a fix and requested CR to retest.
As for CR rating the X lower then the 8. I think its fragility is something that needs to be considered. I can't comment on the battery, I'm happy with the battery myself.
Not true at all. People buy lots of product they are marginally satisfied and worse too. Buying goods and services is not black and white. Many times there isn't a great product in a particular category out there, only two mediocre ones and decide between the two. Other times people can't or don't want to budget for the product they really want and have to compromise with a less expensive one. And then there are the products and service we buy because we have to because it's part of living, but a stretch to say people are "very satisfied." This is not an exclusive list, there are other reasons people but products they don't love, but it's an example of a few.
So, no, sales is not satisfaction. They are independent variables.
It is something to be considered, I'm not sure by the extent CR assigns to it. I think X vs 8 (not plus, the 4.7" 8) $ is more of a consideration than fragility. If you have the $ then the X is the way to go as far as being a far better product. You get what you pay for here -- to the extend you do with any Apple product understanding they are not value priced.
And the fragility of the X's back s obvious to me -- not something I only learned after this report. It was a concern even before my X arrived and I did a lot of in-store case research to find a protective-enough, but not bulky, case. I appreciate CR's testing but I don't think they uncovered anything we didn't already know.
[doublepost=1512566255][/doublepost]
You joke, but those ARE the kinds of things I read CR for. Not all toasters or mouse traps are the same. They may look the same, but some toasters don't toast evenly, some mouse traps are mouse feeders.
Yep, for about 200 more (then the 8), I'm getting some nice new features and a full screen phone. It made sense to me all the way. For me, it was the X, iPhone 7 or more likely waiting to see if Apple rolls out a second generation iPhone SE. I opted for the X
Same here, this is not something exclusive that everyone was unaware of. I have a nice protective case, and on the front I have screen protector.
This is a patently false statement. The way you treat your device and the protection you use has nothing whatsoever to do with the durability of the device itself.
For those complaining, I don't get it...if you already have an iPhone X, why are you going to CR for their review of it? And, if you did go to CR for their review, are you dumb enough to just read a number/meta rating, or would you read the whole thing to figure out what factors in their review were relevant to your use or irrelevant? And, are you really shocked and dismayed that they said a phone with a glass back is prone to cracking, if dropped? And, are you seriously upset that it was in the recommended list? And, who is getting more "clicks" over this, CR or macrumors who got you incensed over the indignity of it all?
He didn’t say it couldn’t be tested.
You quoted different people to support your argument. Good job.
More like the teen market. They are the ones I see most often with cracked screens.
Mike
Just because it has a name doesn't make it reliable. Say the 3 phones were identical in durability, and that the probability of one failure in N tests was 1/3. Then subjecting each of the 3 phones to N tests, chances are one of them would have a failure, but the one that did would say nothing of the relative durability.
Not for me! My 6S battery life was terrible compared to my X. I couldn't go 2 days even when it was new. My X is much better--and better than the LG V20 that I had right before it.
Mike
It seems more likely you didn't explain it because you don't understand it. As if your defense of CR would be accepted because you sounded smart by dropping a name.
You seem to be describing basic product testing, that most manufacturers perform. These test usually repeat the exact process till failure or timeout.
A drop test though is more like throwing dice, or a coin toss. Would make A really be better than make B simply because after 50 throws it resulted in more heads than tails?
If anything, this drop test showed iPhones 8 and X were very lucky to not have damaged the front glass. I certainly wouldn't claim either phone's front glass was "durable."
To me it is obvious the X is going to need protection a little more than an 8/7/6. But I wouldn't use an 8/7/6 without protection either. Still, I definitely am more careful with my X than I was with prior iPhones. That is not just due to thinking it is a bit more fragile: there is also repair cost, which at this point seems quite high, as well as replacement cost.
Mike
Sure. But not with n = 3.
Shouldn't iPhone 8 rank way lower because of abysmal battery life?
iPhone X does actually quite well in this regard, just a bit below the 8 Plus.
I don't get the high ranking of S8. Battery life is subjectively worse than on X and 8 Plus, screen breaks by any sort of off-angle drop and UI becomes laggy after a month.
I'm not saying that those glass-sandwiches are top for durability, they will lose against lots of other phones in this regard, but the ranking doesn't make sense to me.
"chances are one of them would have a failure" is not even a factually precise statement. (Hint: the chance that exactly one would have a failure is less than 50%).
Please leave the statistics to those of us who actually studied it.
That's cute, but wrong. How else could I cite a less-than-common statistical distribution if I didn't know what it was?
You're also looking at this wrong. This isn't like 3 flips of a single coin. The tumble test turns the phone over, and over, and over. The existence is issues is going to be more deterministic, not probabilistic. And that's why relative assessments can be made, and that's why they're quite reasonable.
Ultimately this is really irrelevant. You don't like what CR found with their rigorous, scientific testing. That's too bad. You can still buy an iPhone X if you want. No one is stopping you, or anyone else.
Last edited:
It didn't occur to me on the early iPhones because every smartphone's battery life was garbage when using actually 'smart' functions back then, but in current years the smaller iPhone has been bad - really bad.
Plus is above average I'd say, not great but fine.
The chance that exactly one would have a failure is 4/9, which makes the statement I made factually correct. And that result (which is reasonably likely if the phones are identical) therefore is not a reliable measure of the relative durability.
I didn't say it was. The probability of failure is small in their test, which was executed many times. If you perform 100 tests on 3 phones, and one of them fails once, claims as to relative durability are not reliable.
They dropped multiple phones 50 to 100 times. One X was badly damaged. That's probabilistic.
No, I'm skeptical that the test was rigorous or meaningful. What they observed is entirely consistent with identical durability for the X, 8, and 8+.
Of course. Already have. That has no bearing on the validity of CR's testing.
Last edited:
Do you not go outside and do... things? I easily drop my phone 100 times a year.
Of course the test is scientific just not applicable to real world. Has no bearing on the likelihood of my iPhone X screen breaking.
Wrong. Because the device has to be subjected to damage based on how the user dropped it and if they were using protection. The majority of iPhone owners likely use cases to protect their iPhones, but that's not the probability that their device will or will not suffer damage from a fall. It's been into iterated many times throughout this thread, these tests are not conducive to real world experience based on how somebody handles their device. What one person might experience for damage may not be the end result for somebody else.
Last edited: