The ultimate iPhone 5 review from Anandtech

[GoSh4rks]

This guy may be a great reviewer when it comes to electronics, but he clearly knows absolutely nothing about anodizing aluminum. I have never seen so many egregious errors in such an article containing that subject in my life.

Sheer incompetence on that subject.

So what's wrong with it?

 

[hachiman]

(question answered)

 

[Archer1440]

So what's wrong with it?

This.

"Which brings us to the next key detail with the anodization process: typically, the thickness of the anodization is half the thickness of the base aluminum. So if you had an aluminum plate that was 1mm thick, post-anodization, you would end up with a 1.5mm thick plate"


Utterly wrong. Net gain would be n the order of 1/10th of what he says it is- or usually less.

For example, for a 6061 item 0.017" thick a type 2 anodize layer (Apple is using an even thinner type 1) will be around 0.003". HOWEVER the structure actually LOSES some thickness in the process so the net gain is less.

There are quite a few more misstatements and outright errors in the piece. This was the most obvious one.

 

[Bahroo]

Does anyone else see very tiny vertical lines on their screen? The screen is very sharp and all but i can see very tiny tiny verical lines on my screen, would i be able to swap it out for a replacement ?

 

[iF34R]

great review.... enjoyed spending a LOT of time reading through the entire article.

 

[GoSh4rks]

This.

"Which brings us to the next key detail with the anodization process: typically, the thickness of the anodization is half the thickness of the base aluminum. So if you had an aluminum plate that was 1mm thick, post-anodization, you would end up with a 1.5mm thick plate"


Utterly wrong. Net gain would be n the order of 1/10th of what he says it is- or usually less.

For example, for a 6061 item 0.017" thick a type 2 anodize layer (Apple is using an even thinner type 1) will be around 0.003". HOWEVER the structure actually LOSES some thickness in the process so the net gain is less.

There are quite a few more misstatements and outright errors in the piece. This was the most obvious one.

Looks like it was fixed in the article.

 

[reputationZed]

Withdrawn

 

[BeachChair]

Anand is awesome. I've read his reviews for 10 years. His skill in writing and data representation, rigorous methodology, and technical understanding is something unique.

Just a shame he didn't write the whole review. Klug and Vivek tend to sneak in subjective and perplexing comments in their writing. They also don't represent data as well.
Klug tries to let confusing charts speak for themselves, a common mistake - all charts need to be followed by a description, to either confirm the observed result or explain what is actually observed.
Vivek missed an opportunity to show how much bigger the viewing area when watching 16:9 films is compared to before. It could have been shown objectively and gracefully with a simple graphic.

 

[Archer1440]

Looks like it was fixed in the article.

Yes that specific item was fixed but there are still other gross errors, not the least of which is referring to the bezel chamfers as being "painted".