SquareTrade Says iPhone X is 'Most Breakable iPhone Ever' as Glass Shatters in Series of Drop Tests

[rGiskard]

am I the only one annoyed to see them trash all those phones while I sit here refreshing on my order to see when I might get my own?!

They provide a service to potential iPhone buyers who don't just buy whatever Apple craps into the retail channels.

I'll definitely pass on the X since it's too delicate for the exhorbitant price. I expect a higher price to come with more durability, not less. Hell, my 6 Plus is more durable than any of Apple's new 2017 iPhones! The glass is pretty but like 99% of other iPhone users I put mine in a case and never again see it naked until I sell it.

I don't care about facials or dancing animojis and I can't watch movies because of data caps so for me the only advantage is the camera, which is very good but not worth $1200.

 

[Prissy]

Can someone explain to me why the backglass will cost $549 w/o applecare+?

 

[gaximus]

Apple is really the one that started this crap and this is what we have. $549 to replace the back of a phone, that should have never been made of glass to begin with. Unfortunately the other OEMs have followed Apple of course and so this is what we have. Can't do anything about the screen, but a glass back is just stupid. There are other materials that would work with wireless charging that don't break so easily.

I'm concerned that SquareTrade and others are going to all jack up their plan and and copay prices solely because of how poorly the X is designed in this area.

Except all the other drop test videos I've seen on youtube show it to be less breakable than all other iPhone models, except the first model. Crazy that this company that makes money from people being scarf their phone breaking show the phone breaks even more now.

 

[69650]

Over a thousand quid for a phone that shatters the first time you drop it. Ouch that’s an expensive downside to the X.

 

[Tech198]

shattering.. ...

Can someone explain to me why the backglass will cost $549 w/o applecare+?

*shrugs*

 

[jerryk]

Kind of funny to read these threads. I remember almost the exact same issues with the glass back on the Nexus 4. Saw a ton of those shattered. To make it worst that phone was as slippery as a frozen hockey puck. On a smooth table you could slide it 5 feet with a gentle push.

People made the same arguments about it being too pretty to put a case on. Until they broke one.

 

[JGowan]

There are nice looking cases -- I put mine on and even put a screen protector -- from time to time, I slip the phone out to see the Apple Factor -- I enjoy the back from a minute and then, back into the case. Not a big deal.

 

[ke-iron]

I don’t care how easy the phone breaks. I will continue to use it naked, I bought Apple care plus exactly for this reason.

 

[MrXiro]

Ugh... why wasn't this kind of thing reported on when The GS6 was released... it's glass on the front and back... or the GS7, GS8 or hell why not iPhone 8 last month?

I hate that articles like these need to be written but only about Apple cause for some reason the world needs to find a problem with Apple products all the time.

 

[burgman]

Not sure if you were joking, but the first, I believe by several years, was the iPhone 4. But at least with that one replacing the back was pretty inexpensive. The first Galaxy I had was an S5, and I hated most things about it, but the fact that it didn't need a case and could be dropped without any damage was great. High quality plastic is what phone bodies should be made from... not glass.

Actually I wasn’t, I forgot the word non replaceable glass back. iPhone 4 series back glass replacement was Cheap and easy. Samsung S6 was first glass back that Ifixit rated very difficult for replacement, if I recall correctly.

 

[haruhiko]

Exactly, the Iphone X won't break and I won't keep it in any sort of case because we all know that Squaretrade is filled with liars and the glass on the Iphone X is the greatest strongest glass ever made and will never crack...EVER!!!!!!

Don’t put words into my mouth. I was talking about their obvious conflict of interest.

 

[norbinhouston]

Wow, there really is no point in posting anything constructive here as the Apple haters won't ever change their minds. They are as much sheep as they claim iPhone fans are. lol. Why do they bother coming here? Just stay over on an Android fan forum instead. Or is it their inferiority complex rearing its ugly head?

 

[Mirice99]

Don’t put words into my mouth. I was talking about their obvious conflict of interest.

Yeah because their is no obvious conflict of interest with Apple designing a phone which costs 549 to repair while pushing Applecare? Go ahead and ask an Apple employee selling an Iphone X if the recommend Applecare....

 

[john123]

That's easily answered: Someone who stands to gain a whole lot more money by convincing new iPhone X owners that they'd be better off buying his cell phone insurance plans.

If I do decide to get insurance, it sure as shootin' ain't gonna be from SquareTrade.

Why? Because they have a marketing department doing its job?

Yeah, that's a really good reason not to buy from them....
[doublepost=1510071506][/doublepost]

This article is a biased hit piece, nobody drops their phone from 6 feet — not even Shaq! For the average user, a six foot drop means holding your phone ABOVE YOUR HEAD and dropping it! WTF!!!

For an encore they are going to drop the X out of an airplane?

CNET did a 3' drop test. Two of them. Cracks both times.

 

[noxw]

I think you'll be waiting a long time. Apple seems to have a goal of someday making an iPhone that is a single slab of glass.

This would be nice, but in contrast to the current generation this would be a requirement for the design.
For this current Iphone using glass on the back, is just a bad trade-off between design and durability to me.

 

[zarmanto]

Why? Because they have a marketing department doing its job? ...

Nope: it's largely because their marketing department is attempting to amplify fear in order to drive sales. Intentionally performing a drop test which is wildly outside of the typical use case is taking things a bridge too far, in my opinion. What's worse, it's not even remotely necessary: The phone is made of glass -- of course it'll break if you don't put it in a protective case and then drop it from above your head! So don't do that!!

As for CNET's three foot drop test... guess what? Still, no case. In fact, their drop test review even specifically recommends that you put it in a case. (Also of note: their separate product review gave the iPhone X a 9 out of 10, right before they decided it was time to go break it.)

Bottom line: People who invest $1K in a fragile portable electronic device either need to handle it with kid gloves, or they need to protect it -- but insurance is by no means the only way to protect that investment. However, if you're going to buy insurance for your Apple device... my advice would always be to get that insurance directly from Apple. Third parties invariably will not treat you as well as the source, because they're not as invested in the product; that's simple human nature.

 

[john123]

Nope: it's largely because their marketing department is attempting to amplify fear in order to drive sales. Intentionally performing a drop test which is wildly outside of the typical use case is taking things a bridge too far, in my opinion. What's worse, it's not even remotely necessary: The phone is made of glass -- of course it'll break if you don't put it in a protective case and then drop it from above your head! So don't do that!!

As for CNET's three foot drop test... guess what? Still, no case. In fact, their drop test review even specifically recommends that you put it in a case. (Also of note: their separate product review gave the iPhone X a 9 out of 10, right before they decided it was time to go break it.)

Bottom line: People who invest $1K in a fragile portable electronic device either need to handle it with kid gloves, or they need to protect it -- but insurance is by no means the only way to protect that investment. However, if you're going to buy insurance for your Apple device... my advice would always be to get that insurance directly from Apple. Third parties invariably will not treat you as well as the source, because they're not as invested in the product; that's simple human nature.

Wow. This is beyond silly.

First off, cases and insurance are not an either/or proposition. As you pointed out, you can do one, or you can do both. It's not like SquareTrade is saying or implying that you can't use a case, which you seem to implicitly suggest. Furthermore, there are people who LIKE to carry their phones naked and without a case. So, they may prefer to purchase insurance to hedge against accidental drops rather than adding the bulk of the case. I personally, wouldn't, but that's me. Different people have different preferences and different tolerances for risk. That fact seems to be completely missing from everything you said.

Second, the SquareTrade test is a bit exaggerated but not at all unreasonable. If you're taking a photo at eye level and you drop your phone, you're about at that height. It's not like they thrust it to the ground with added force, or tossed it onto a jagged surface.

Third, what on earth does the 9/10 rating for the device have to do with anything? This isn't some holy war about whether the iPhone X is a good device. And it shouldn't be a holy war about SquareTrade either. Only you and people like you are making it into that.

Fourth, this assertion that a third party warranty company won't "treat you as well" is pure speculation on your part. I actually know several executives at another major insurance company, and they are religiously committed to customer service. It's a fundamental part of their business model. Furthermore, for people who don't live near an Apple Store, SquareTrade can make more sense. And it offers more claims than AppleCare as well as longer plans.

And fifth, as I alluded to previously, you seem to miss the point of marketing. Claims are exaggerated, and companies do it every...single...day. Are you going to stop buying Apple products too because they cherry pick benchmarks that are best-case-scenario rather than real world? Yeah, based on everything pro-Apple you typed, I'd bet my bottom dollar you aren't.

TL/DR: Get real. This wasn't a faked test. It might not be the most common use case, but in the realm of marketing tactics, it's reasonable, acceptable, and standard. It also has you and other people talking about it, which means it's at least somewhat effective.
[doublepost=1510086781][/doublepost]

If I do decide to get insurance, it sure as shootin' ain't gonna be from SquareTrade.

Pretty sure based on everything above you made up your mind about that, and any other company that doesn't have the name "Apple" in it, a long time ago.

 

[zarmanto]

... This isn't some holy war about whether the iPhone X is a good device. And it shouldn't be a holy war about SquareTrade either. Only you and people like you are making it into that.

Wow. Defensive, much? I was being critical of SquareTrade... not you. If I didn't know any better, I'd think that you were a troll and/or a shill for SquareTrade, or somehow personally invested in the company, or at least in their particular business practices --

... Fourth, this assertion that a third party warranty company won't "treat you as well" is pure speculation on your part. I actually know several executives at another major insurance company...

Oh... I didn't even have to read much further to get there. So, yeah; while you're attempting to claim that my opinions are speculative and not objective, you're also pointing a huge neon arrow at your own lack of objectivity, in the process. Your "buddies" who work for that insurance company probably have to fend off critics like me all the time, don't they? And clearly, you do too, eh?

Here's the thing about insurance, though: It's an incredibly lucrative cash cow. That's an objective statement of fact, not just my opinion; just ask any investment manager. Anecdotally, I was exposed to this truth very early on: I used to work in sales, many moons ago, and my manager specifically taught us that the reasons we were to always push insurance with every purchase was that the vast majority of insurance holders will never actually need to collect on that insurance plan. Therefore, practically every insurance plan sold was pure profit. Will a small percentage of people end up using it? Sure. But the vast majority won't.

So, just as you suggested, let's be real here: where insurance is concerned, what you're really buying, is peace of mind. And as you stated, we all have different tolerances for how much "peace" we need. Given that it's specifically peace that we're actually discussing here, it shouldn't be even remotely surprising that I would refuse to do business with a company which doesn't make me feel at peace with their business practices. You feel so strongly that I'm unfairly judging them on their business practices? Good for you! Put your money where your mouth is, and go buy their insurance! I won't be lining up behind you, though.

Now, as to your prospective coup de gras:

... Pretty sure based on everything above you made up your mind about that, and any other company that doesn't have the name "Apple" in it, a long time ago.

Oh really? You got all of that from that one post, did you? That's pretty darned impressive, actually. Or, you know, you could have just deduced that from the forum name. You think that maybe this might be a somewhat Apple-centric forum, possibly? Hmmm?

Or even more simply, it could just be a rather blatant red herring/ad homonym attack in a transparent attempt to discredit me personally... because I apparently said some stuff that got under your skin. (Pretty deep, even! I haven't seen such a strong response to one of my forum posts in awhile, that wasn't from an obvious troll!) To be clear, my own personal preferences for one toy company over another have absolutely no bearing on this discussion; you're the one who tried to make that into an issue here, not me. Let's try to stay on topic, okay?

 

[john123]

Wow. Defensive, much? I was being critical of SquareTrade... not you. If I didn't know any better, I'd think that you were a troll and/or a shill for SquareTrade, or somehow personally invested in the company, or at least in their particular business practices

Your veiled name calling, which is I'll note is against the forum rules, is also inaccurate. I don't work for SquareTrade or any other insurance company. Nor do I work for any sort of product company.

I have also never purchased anything from SquareTrade, or a third party company for that matter. I buy AppleCare for my MBPs, mostly because the AC adapters tend to fray and Apple has always been good about replacing them, and that plus the peace of mind makes it worth it to me. I used to buy AppleCare for my iPhones, although with the change in economics a couple years ago, it no longer was worth it to me. So yeah, now that that's out of the way...

Oh... I didn't even have to read much further to get there. So, yeah; while you're attempting to claim that my opinions are speculative and not objective, you're also pointing a huge neon arrow at your own lack of objectivity, in the process. Your "buddies" who work for that insurance company probably have to fend off critics like me all the time, don't they? And clearly, you do too, eh?

Lack of objectivity? Hi pot; it's kettle here. You're the one one claiming Apple is best. I didn't come down one way or another. In fact, I clearly said that each person should evaluate the pros and cons.

Also, I said that I knew some people who work for those companies, too. Not that they are "buddies." (In fact, i's actually been a few years since I last talked to them.) But keep twisting...

Here's the thing about insurance, though: It's an incredibly lucrative cash cow. That's an objective statement of fact, not just my opinion; just ask any investment manager. Anecdotally, I was exposed to this truth very early on: I used to work in sales, many moons ago, and my manager specifically taught us that the reasons we were to always push insurance with every purchase was that the vast majority of insurance holders will never actually need to collect on that insurance plan. Therefore, practically every insurance plan sold was pure profit. Will a small percentage of people end up using it? Sure. But the vast majority won't.

So, just as you suggested, let's be real here: where insurance is concerned, what you're really buying, is peace of mind. And as you stated, we all have different tolerances for how much "peace" we need.

No disagreement through any of this. It also doesn't have anything to do with the points previously raised, though.

Given that it's specifically peace that we're actually discussing here, it shouldn't be even remotely surprising that I would refuse to do business with a company which doesn't make me feel at peace with their business practices. You feel so strongly that I'm unfairly judging them on their business practices? Good for you! Put your money where your mouth is, and go buy their insurance! I won't be lining up behind you, though.

Nope, my point was that your "I believe in buying from companies with good business practices" is hypocritical given that nearly every company's marketing efforts—Apple's included—stretch the limits of "reasonable" to this level, and a great many go far beyond. You can't have it both ways. I mean, you can...but then let's not pretend there's some logical and rational basis for it.

Now, as to your prospective coup de gras:

Oh really? You got all of that from that one post, did you? That's pretty darned impressive, actually. Or, you know, you could have just deduced that from the forum name. You think that maybe this might be a somewhat Apple-centric forum, possibly? Hmmm?

Being Apple centric, and even being for people who like Apple products, does not mean that it should be a blanket forum for endorsing all things Apple and taking a dump on all things that aren't Apple. That's essentially what you were doing. And that's my complaint.

Or even more simply, it could just be a rather blatant red herring/ad homonym attack in a transparent attempt to discredit me personally... because I apparently said some stuff that got under your skin. (Pretty deep, even! I haven't seen such a strong response to one of my forum posts in awhile, that wasn't from an obvious troll!) To be clear, my own personal preferences for one toy company over another have absolutely no bearing on this discussion; you're the one who tried to make that into an issue here, not me. Let's try to stay on topic, okay?

I wouldn't say that it got under my skin; rather, it drew my attention and compelled me to respond. One of the problems in the world today is people seeing things through the lens of what they already believe, rather than evaluating facts with an unbiased and impartial mindset and then coming up with beliefs from there—which also means revising the beliefs that they previously had. And your post exemplified that. Confirmation bias is everywhere, and I like calling it out. Sometimes, the person in question recognizes what they were doing. That's the best outcome! But other times, other people read it and realize that they are doing the same thing. And that's a good outcome too.

As for the ad hom thing, give me a break. You're the one who has invoked the word "troll" twice and "shill" once. I took issue with your statements directly and addressed them in a series of points. You do know what an "ad hominem" (spelling fixed) argument actually is, right?

As for staying on topic, I responded to the points you made, and I'd argue that they are quite germane. If you choose not to respond from here, obviously I have nothing to respond to either. If you do, I'm happy to engage.

 

[SactoGuy18]

This is why you want to get a decent protective case. I'd recommend the Incipio DualPro, the case I'm now using on my iPhone 6 (soon to be iPhone 8). Incipio is supposed to ship a clear version of the DualPro for the iPhone X soon.

 

[zarmanto]

Lack of objectivity? Hi pot; it's kettle here.

Well, at least you're admitting that you're not objective.

The majority of your post is, in my opinion, just more red herring taking us further and further away from the original point of the thread. So no: I'm not going to engage you on that commentary -- save one point:

You do know what an "ad hominem" (spelling fixed) argument actually is, right?

Sure do. You do know that name calling is not a prerequisite for an ad hominem, right? A personal attack on my character, in which you try to suggest that I'm nothing more than a shill (without using the word, but nonetheless) for Apple, is still an ad hominem. It was also entirely unnecessary, and entirely off topic.

You seem to want to think that you're the one taking the high road, here. I suggest you take some of your own advice, and look more closely at your own confirmation bias.

 

[mrdude42]

The device SquareTrade uses to test the phone drop looks like it's slamming it into the ground. Lol. Obviously they have an incentive to make every phone seem very likely to break because they sell protection plans for mobile devices. So I'd take their "tests" with a grain of salt.

 

[john123]

Well, at least you're admitting that you're not objective.

Actually, I wasn't and don't. It was an expression. In fact, saying I'm "not objective" is downright silly, given that I didn't take a stance one way or the other as to whether warranties are "good" or bad, or as to whether AppleCare+ is superior or inferior to SquareTrade's plans or those of third parties. Only you did that (without any evidence to support your assertion, I'll add). How is saying "different products are right for different consumers" not objective? I'd love to hear an answer to this one.

Or is it that, in your mind, if someone doesn't think Apple's stuff is superior, that person must not be objective?

The majority of your post is, in my opinion, just more red herring taking us further and further away from the original point of the thread. So no: I'm not going to engage you on that commentary

So, you don't wish to engage on the substantive issues (of which I raised several that you are either unwilling or unable to address), and you just want to talk about personal attacks—in which you engaged and I did not? Wow. Got it.

And just to be clear, the point of the thread is to discuss the SquareTrade video of drop tests and what we should take away from that video. Those topics include things like conclusions about the durability of the iPhone X, how reasonable those tests were, and SquareTrade as a company. Preeeeetty sure we were firmly on topic until you started taking us in this crazy direction. The red herring is yours. The fact that you refuse to discuss the merits of the actual points I raised is telling.

Sure do. You do know that name calling is not a prerequisite for an ad hominem, right? A personal attack on my character, in which you try to suggest that I'm nothing more than a shill (without using the word, but nonetheless) for Apple, is still an ad hominem. It was also entirely unnecessary, and entirely off topic.

I didn't call you a shill, nor did I imply you're a shill. Nor did I say anything about your "personal character." I simply pointed out that you clearly have a love for things Apple. (I figured that out with some basic inductive reasoning.) You then admitted as much in your subsequent post. So, how is pointing out a fact with which you agree any sort of attack? I mean, good grief.

You seem to want to think that you're the one taking the high road, here. I suggest you take some of your own advice, and look more closely at your own confirmation bias.

Ummmmmm, do you understand what the term "confirmation bias" means? I know I used it, but I hoped you'd at least look it up. As I stated at the outset of this post and previous posts, I take no particular view here (so having confirmation bias really is, by definition, impossible). The only thing I said was that the ad is reasonable. You haven't contested any of the reasons I gave for the ad being reasonable. You just keep doubling down, ignoring all the points raised and pretending like some sort of personal attack was made against you.

Pointing out that you favor the Apple plan and dislike the third party plan solely because it is from a third party isn't an attack. It's illustrating a fatal flaw in your reasoning. Rather than being defensive about it, this is a learning opportunity for you.

To reiterate the most important points,

• What SquareTrade put together was extremely reasonable by conventional marketing standards
• The video was clearly not fabricated, and while the use case (being dropped held at eye level by a tall guy) is not the most common, it's certainly a real one
• There's also video of that more common use case, done by CNET and others, showing the glass cracking from a 3' drop, so this debate doesn't even really matter

 

[ackmondual]

Omg. It’s full of glass. Of course it will break. Is this actually news.

I recall in their presentation, they said the glass was reinforced by steel. Somebody else pointed out that...

Well, there would not have been anyone saying anything if Apple had not made this claim:

https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/

The most durable glass ever in a smartphone, front and back. Surgical‑grade stainless steel. Wireless charging. Water and dust resistance.

 

[Rahul katara]

Can someone explain to me why the backglass will cost $549 w/o applecare+?

It’s very painful to know that IPhone x cost 579$ to replace ,add warranty and it’s screen repair is little under 300$.you definetly don’t want to break the display and protect it
http://www.thehelicals.com/iphone-x-drop-test-simply-impressive/
[doublepost=1510198064][/doublepost]

Apple says the iPhone X has the most durable glass ever used in a smartphone, with a strengthening layer that is 50 percent deeper, but a series of drop tests show that glass and concrete still don't play well together.

SquareTrade, a company that provides extended warranties for electronic devices, conducted several breakability tests on the iPhone X, and found that its glass back and lack of a home button make it "the most breakable iPhone ever."

Not only did the iPhone X's glass shatter when dropped on its front and back from a height of six feet, but the display also malfunctioned. Keep in mind that pocket height for most people is about three feet.

SquareTrade is naturally using the opportunity to push its two-year smartphone protection plan, which was recently reduced to $129 plus a $99 deductible for most claims, in the United States.

The plan covers cracked screens, liquid damage, battery failure, Lightning connector failure, and speaker failure. It doesn't cover loss or theft.

SquareTrade customers now have an in-home repair option with a lower $25 deductible to fix cracked screens. The service is currently available in more than 700 cities across the United States, with new cities added monthly.

A few YouTube channels also tested the iPhone X in extreme conditions to determine how durable and water resistant the device is.

EverythingApplePro placed the iPhone X in a 20-foot tube of water for 35 minutes without any signs of liquid damage occurring. He also put the iPhone X into a running washing machine, and the device still remained functional.

JerryRigEverything scratched the iPhone X with a utility knife, including the cameras, stainless steel frame, and rear Apple logo. He also tried to bend the device, without much success, and burn the display with a lighter.

While breakability tests are generally unscientific, the videos reveal that even the most durable glass in a smartphone isn't shatterproof.

Apple recently confirmed it will charge out-of-warranty rates of $279 for iPhone X screen repairs, and $549 for any other damage to the device, unless it is a manufacturing defect covered by Apple's standard one-year limited warranty.

There's also AppleCare+, an optional, premium warranty plan that extends an iPhone's warranty coverage to two years from the original purchase date of the device, and adds up to two incidents of accidental damage coverage.

With AppleCare+ for iPhone X, the price of a repair would be the $199 upfront cost of the plan plus a $29 or $99 incidental fee.

If you shatter your iPhone X's screen once, for example, you would pay $279 out of warranty. With the upfront cost of AppleCare+ coupled with the screen repair incidental fee, you would pay $228.

If you shatter your iPhone X's back glass, having AppleCare+ is even more worthwhile. Apple's flat rate is $549 for this type of damage, while the upfront cost of AppleCare+ coupled with a $99 incidental fee totals $298.

All prices above are listed in U.S. dollars. AppleCare+ and Apple's out-of-warranty repair fees vary in other countries.

SquareTrade conducted breakability tests for the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus a few months ago with similar results. Both of the glass-bodied models shattered on all sides in every single drop test, including front and back drops at a distance of six feet, a 22-foot shot drop test, and a tumble test.

Article Link: SquareTrade Says iPhone X is 'Most Breakable iPhone Ever' as Glass Shatters in Series of Drop Tests

[doublepost=1510198340][/doublepost]This is utter nuisance why would you throw the phone and try to break from 6 feet height.
In reality such kind of situation never happens.
Apart from this if it's facing the screen or backside there very chances it will break. The claim are absolutely correct about durablity atlest in the series so far.The new iPhone x is unique among all series so far. The body is made of stainless steel which is not very often used by apple however looks beautiful from outside.Iphone 8 when taken as a reference tested along with iphone x to test the durability, the results were far better.