Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple has backtracked before by changing the Shuffle back to its old design after the buttonless model met a lot of criticism. They also added FireWire back to MacBooks.

They do admit failure by changing designs. Not often, but it is not unprecedented.
let's hope they recognize the faux pas this time.
 
I'm pretty sure the front IS gorilla glass.

It's proven that Gorilla glass is stronger. Apple proprietary glass may be bendable but when it comes to actual durability the gorilla glass wins hands down.

And now you're agreeing Apple is using its own glass in the iPhone 4. You should probably get your arguments straight before you sound sillier...:rolleyes:
 
And now you're agreeing Apple is using its own glass in the iPhone 4. You should probably get your arguments straight before you sound sillier...:rolleyes:

No I just said that Apple's glass may be bendable but gorilla glass is stronger.

No where have I said the iPhone 4 uses Apple's glass, no one really knows either but we do know the glass used on the front of the iPhone 4 is stronger then the one on the back of the iPhone 4, it's all speculation until Apple/parts manufactures actually confirm something, which would probably never happen.
 
No I just said that Apple's glass may be bendable but gorilla glass is stronger.

No where have I said the iPhone 4 uses Apple's glass, no one really knows either but we do know the glass used on the front of the iPhone 4 is stronger then the one on the back of the iPhone 4, it's all speculation until Apple/parts manufactures actually confirm something, which would probably never happen.

really? you're going to argue about this when you were QUOTED saying the opposite?
 
really? you're going to argue about this when you were QUOTED saying the opposite?
In that quote I said I was pretty sure that the front was gorilla glass and in my last post I said it's all speculation until Apple announces something. In my quote I was speculating notice I said "pretty sure IS" not "IS". Anyway I'm going to stop posting in this thread because it's getting pretty pointless. Your all iSheep, you won't accept Gorilla glass is superior to the glass Apple currently uses in their products and when I prove you wrong you just try and string together a whole lot of posts to make trying to prove me wrong.
 
In that quote I said I was pretty sure that the front was gorilla glass and in my last post I said it's all speculation until Apple announces something. In my quote I was speculating notice I said "pretty sure IS" not "IS". Anyway I'm going to stop posting in this thread because it's getting pretty pointless. Your all iSheep, you won't accept Gorilla glass is superior to the glass Apple currently uses in their products and when I prove you wrong you just try and string together a whole lot of posts to make trying to prove me wrong.

first you directly responded to vicenz's post where he said that apple would "not" license the glass, and you said there was no way that they "wouldn't" spend the money thereby implying they licensed gorilla glass. and then you finish that response by saying you say you're "pretty sure" the front "is" gorilla glass. in this post you come across as thinking that the glass IS gorilla glass, vicenz obviously thought that and so did i. i'm sure others did as well.

later, again responding to vicenz, you then confirm that apple's proprietary glass isn't as good as gorilla glass. this means you agree that it ISN'T gorilla glass because it's not as tough.

don't you see how the 2 comments conflict. this is what vicenz is going on about. first u say it is.. then u say it isn't. i agree you didn't say IS, but you implied it and are now getting the hump when people are asking you for clarification.

and no we're not isheep, i'm certainly not anyway. nobody is disputing how tough gorilla glass is, they're questioning if the iphone uses it and if it does why does it seem so crap.

nobody is constructing anything. you've said all of it yourself and your posts sound seriously confused. read your posts again, and then learn some manners.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

amarcus said:

That's the iPhone front glass, which is not what broke. It was the back piece on mine that broke so easily that it is without doubt just cheap window glass.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)



That's the iPhone front glass, which is not what broke. It was the back piece on mine that broke so easily that it is without doubt just cheap window glass.

Ok so it's cheap window glass, go to the Apple store and pay $29 to get it fixed then.
 
That's the iPhone front glass, which is not what broke. It was the back piece on mine that broke so easily that it is without doubt just cheap window glass.
..one of the reasons i passed on the iphone 4...
I just use a good case.
have you seen how horrible the squareish 4 looks in a case?

Ok so it's cheap window glass, go to the Apple store and pay $29 to get it fixed then.
why should you have to go to all that trouble and pay $30 for a design flaw?
 
1. ..one of the reasons i passed on the iphone 4...

2. have you seen how horrible the squareish 4 looks in a case?


3.why should you have to go to all that trouble and pay $30 for a design flaw?

1. Good for you.

2. No I haven't care to show me?

3. How is glass smashing a design flaw. It's like saying since windows smash when you throw a ball at them it's a design flaw in the glass. A real design flaw is something like the iPhone 4 antenna.
 
No offense, but read your posts again and learn some grammar.

Posts as in plural? You sure about that? It was the first time I've posted in this thread but I guess the syntax is correct so the facts don't matter right? You're right, I'm wrong.

Seriously, I don't want to make this personal but calm down a bit. You've confused a few people here and are now taking a lot of comments way too personally. Vicenz antagonized you with his comeback, but still it's the internet, things get confused. No need to rise up against it.
 
Posts as in plural? You sure about that? It was the first time I've posted in this thread but I guess the syntax is correct so the facts don't matter right? You're right, I'm wrong.

Seriously, I don't want to make this personal but calm down a bit. You've confused a few people here and are now taking a lot of comments way too personally. Vicenz antagonized you with his comeback, but still it's the internet, things get confused. No need to rise up against it.

I'm not worked up at all and I am calm. In your last post (before the one I'm quoting) you wrote the whole thing without capitals, which is annoying as this is a forum with proper grammar. I'm not antagonised. Obviously things get taken the wrong way on the internet because you can't see facial expressions. Anyway this is getting pointless.

/conversation
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

macingman said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)



That's the iPhone front glass, which is not what broke. It was the back piece on mine that broke so easily that it is without doubt just cheap window glass.

Ok so it's cheap window glass, go to the Apple store and pay $29 to get it fixed then.

That's not the point of this thread. The point is that the back glass is inexplicably cheap window glass when it should be strengthened glass like the front or even better, Gorilla Glass. It is a design flaw to use such a cheap material for the back of the iPhone 4 that so easily shatters.
 
1. Good for you.

2. No I haven't care to show me?

3. How is glass smashing a design flaw. It's like saying since windows smash when you throw a ball at them it's a design flaw in the glass. A real design flaw is something like the iPhone 4 antenna.
2.
uniform-experiment-iphone-4-case-1.jpg


3. all windows are made of glass and can be expected to break. all phones do not have glass backs. it's arguable if it's a design flaw or just a damn stupid design decision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
It is a design flaw to use such a cheap material for the back of the iPhone 4 that so easily shatters.
I wouldn't call it a design flaw, more of a bad design decision that they don't use a better glass.
2. Image


3. all windows are made of glass and can be expected to break. all phones do not have glass backs. it's arguable if it's a design flaw or just a damn stupid design decision.
I quite like that look of the iPhone 4 with the case on, each to their own though.

And I would agree with you that it is a bad design decision that they didn't at least use a stronger glass on the back of the phone. I've dropped my iPhone 4 flat on it's back on concrete without a case and haven't got one mark from it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.