10-02-2017 11:41 AM
59 123
tools
  1. RaRa85's Avatar
    Any experience with the glass backed ones?
    Nope just saying that what LG has been touting has been pretty consistent in the past. Just have to wait and see as I won't be using a case on the V30 either. Don't plan on dropping it either though.
    09-04-2017 01:12 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Nope just saying that what LG has been touting has been pretty consistent in the past. Just have to wait and see as I won't be using a case on the V30 either. Don't plan on dropping it either though.
    The V10 felt like a tank to me but I don't have much experience with the G6 or the V20.
    09-04-2017 01:13 PM
  3. RaRa85's Avatar
    The V10 felt like a tank to me but I don't have much experience with the G6 or the V20.
    Yeah the V10 was really rugged but I can tell you the V20 is the real deal. It's a little weird seeing the battery door fly off and the battery fly off in another direction but when you inspect all the parts you can't help but be impressed and surprised. At least from my experience.
    Aquila likes this.
    09-04-2017 01:16 PM
  4. muckrakerX's Avatar
    What drugs are you on? I need some of those! My Samsung slid off a car seat onto a rubber floor mat (a drop of about 8") and the screen shattered and spiderwebbed.
    I guess overestimated the ability of this forum to recognize sarcasm. My post was actually 100 %sarcasm.
    dov1978 likes this.
    09-04-2017 02:28 PM
  5. irvine752's Avatar
    This is the part that is the misconception... "military grade" and MIL-STD-810G are not interchangeable, or really even related in this sense. The first post has a long explanation of "military grade" and it's meaning related to civilian products, so I won't go back into all that here. Long story short, is that it is a meaningless marketing term with no standards implied. Even meeting the MIL-STD-810G requirements does not imply

    The IP68 and MIL-STD-810G tests are not the same, however the IP68 testing that LG does is more rigorous than the aspects of the MIL-STD-810G testing that they went through, so simply stating IP68 rated is enough for those specific tests. That is why I brought up their IP68 test, because for those specific tests, every device that meets or exceeds the standards for IP68 will be able to pass those same tests in the MIL-STD-810G versions.

    The tests that IP68 does not address are those related to temperature, shock, etc. The MIL-STD-810G tests are not even that heavily regulated by the DOD or anyone else for military products, but they are even less regulated on non-military products. That's the entire problem. In research for this post, I came across dozens of independent sources complaining about the lack of uniformity in the testing process.

    But much more importantly, the larger point is addressed by a question asked up front in the first post: can you think of a single flagship device in recent memory that would be inoperable after a 4 ft drop onto 2 inches of plywood? I cannot. Almost every device that receives the more stringent IP68 testing is going to be able to pass nearly all of these tests with flying colors.

    TLDR: 1) The IP68 test is a higher standard than the same tests conducted as part of the 810G testing. 2) The remaining tests can be passed by just about every device you can name 3) Nothing about any of these tests makes it a product that is either fit for or commissioned for any sort of military usage. 4) As stated in the first post, the term "military grade" is a marketing term, that does not tell us anything about the product. It doesn't mean that it is any more or less durable, etc. It simply is adding two words with no inherent meaning of their own in terms of product quality.
    Not sure where the misconception is coming from....the two are indeed interchangeable. It's a compliance rating regulated by the US government. The testing is done in a controlled environment by a certified independent lab not by LG. Regardless whether the products are meant for civilians or military use, the same rating governs thems all. You can't just throw this rating on any product without going through the proper channels for regulation especially on, doing so will only open you & subject you to government fines or even worse a PR nightmare. The DOD has the discretion & could easily issue the use of 810G products by the military, and anything with that rating is fair game including the V30.

    Citing one example of a transit drop onto plywood certainly doesn't help. There's no partial complaince, it's all or nothing & the independent labs use all sorts of surface drops not just plywood. It's "military grade" because it's a military standard, specifically the 810G standard. End of story. I would be very carefully with articles online trying to pick apart this complaince and treating those as facts. If anyone had a real issue with it, they would have opened up a complaint against LG to the DOD years ago.
    09-04-2017 02:29 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    Not sure where the misconception is coming from....the two are indeed interchangeable. It's a compliance rating regulated by the US government. The testing is done in a controlled environment by a certified independent lab not by LG. Regardless whether the products are meant for civilians or military use, the same rating governs thems all. You can't just throw this rating on any product without going through the proper channels for regulation especially on, doing so will only open you & subject you to government fines or even worse a PR nightmare. The DOD has the discretion & could easily issue the use of 810G products by the military, and anything with that rating is fair game including the V30.

    Citing one example of a transit drop onto plywood certainly doesn't help. There's no partial complaince, it's all or nothing & the independent labs use all sorts of surface drops not just plywood. It's "military grade" because it's a military standard, specifically the 810G standard. End of story. I would be very carefully with articles online trying to pick apart this complaince and treating those as facts. If anyone had a real issue with it, they would have opened up a complaint against LG to the DOD years ago.
    "military grade" is not regulated. It doesn't mean anything other than what I explained.

    The plywood thing is part of the official documentation for how that test is to be conducted. They don't use multiple surfaces for this test, that's part of the requirements.

    The complaint against LG is not that they didn't do the test, it's that the test is meaningless. No one is saying they didn't do the test. The argument is that it's a nonsensical thing to say about a phone. Also, there are more tests that they didn't do than the 14 tests they chose to do.

    A big part of the research was reading the actual documentation for the standard and about how exactly these tests are conducted. Some of the statements you're making are assumptions and they disagree with the actual documentation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you should read the actual spec and then read LGs marketing in the context of that material.
    09-04-2017 02:37 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    The testing is done in a controlled environment by a certified independent lab not by LG.
    Any idea who these independent labs are? The articles I was reading a while back on this said there is no independent testing (at least for consumer goods), and had quotes from companies like Otter Box that described their in house testing procedures.

    As for the DoD certifying consumer goods, that's just nonsense. They aren't going to bother ensuring compliance unless it's a product specifically destined for military or similar governmental use. It's like products claiming to use "aircraft grade aluminum." You really think the FAA or whoever is examining the quality of that material in something like a razor blade?
    09-04-2017 02:48 PM
  8. irvine752's Avatar
    "military grade" is not regulated. It doesn't mean anything other than what I explained.

    The plywood thing is part of the official documentation for how that test is to be conducted. They don't use multiple surfaces for this test, that's part of the requirements.

    The complaint against LG is not that they didn't do the test, it's that the test is meaningless. No one is saying they didn't do the test. The argument is that it's a nonsensical thing to say about a phone. Also, there are more tests that they didn't do than the 14 tests they chose to do.

    A big part of the research was reading the actual documentation for the standard and about how exactly these tests are conducted. Some of the statements you're making are assumptions and they disagree with the actual documentation. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you should read the actual spec and then read LGs marketing in the context of that material.
    Ok. So a quick google search of the term yields: “Military grade,” when used to describe phone cases, refers to MIL-STD-810G (military*standard 810G), the latest version of a set of tests developed by the US Department of Defense to determine the “environmental worthiness and overall durability of material system design” of certain types of objects.

    Other eletronic devices such as laptops go through the same compliance testing. Not sure how this would not make sense for phones. Either way there's false information floating around. Let's start with your souce. Please share a reference link to an official independent lab that only uses plywood as a transit drop test (LG does not do the testing or pick which tests they run). I would love to also see the official documentation you're looking at.
    09-04-2017 02:59 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    Ok. So a quick google search of the term yields: “Military grade,” when used to describe phone cases, refers to MIL-STD-810G (military*standard 810G), the latest version of a set of tests developed by the US Department of Defense to determine the “environmental worthiness and overall durability of material system design” of certain types of objects.

    Other eletronic devices such as laptops go through the same compliance testing. Not sure how this would not make sense for phones. Either way there's false information floating around. Let's start with your souce. Please share a reference link to an official independent lab that only uses plywood as a transit drop test (LG does not do the testing or pick which tests they run). I would love to also see the official documentation you're looking at.
    Here is a source that the better at explaining it than I am

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...est-standards/
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    09-04-2017 03:12 PM
  10. dov1978's Avatar
    I guess overestimated the ability of this forum to recognize sarcasm. My post was actually 100 %sarcasm.
    Ahhh. I'm usually on form with sarcasm too but with so many Americans in the forums it just caught me off guard
    09-04-2017 03:56 PM
  11. Mike Dee's Avatar
    I guess overestimated the ability of this forum to recognize sarcasm. My post was actually 100 %sarcasm.
    You'll have to work on your delivery. LOL
    09-04-2017 05:17 PM
  12. anon(5630457)'s Avatar
    I agree with the OP. It's a meaningless marketing term. I never make purchasing decisions based on that stupid gimmick.
    09-04-2017 05:33 PM
  13. Mike Dee's Avatar
    I agree with the OP. It's a meaningless marketing term. I never make purchasing decisions based on that stupid gimmick.
    Agreed and my purchase had nothing to do with the rating either.
    I can just imagine all the people who walk into their carrier and say "can you show me something in a military grade?
    09-04-2017 06:47 PM
  14. irvine752's Avatar
    Here is a source that the better at explaining it than I am

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...est-standards/
    So the article you're citing is specific to phones cases only. It's not applicable to electronic devices which require an independent lab to do the testing. Once the testing is complete, they issue a "Compliance Certificate" with a certificate number that's regulated by a County or a Federal Accreditation Bereau.

    As for the plywood reference in the procedure, anything that passes the outlined method certainly passes. Also keep in mind anything that passes using concrete or steel, certainly passes but also exceeds the standard & this would be noted on the Compliance Certificate.
    09-05-2017 02:11 AM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    So the article you're citing is specific to phones cases only. It's not applicable to electronic devices which require an independent lab to do the testing. Once the testing is complete, they issue a "Compliance Certificate" with a certificate number that's regulated by a County or a Federal Accreditation Bereau.

    As for the plywood reference in the procedure, anything that passes the outlined method certainly passes. Also keep in mind anything that passes using concrete or steel, certainly passes but also exceeds the standard & this would be noted on the Compliance Certificate.
    It is explaining the concept, not detailing what LG did. It explains both the concept of testing and the irregularities of testing. It also explains why most manufacturers don't bother with it.
    09-05-2017 06:59 AM
  16. Law2138's Avatar
    You folks are waaaay to technical for me. One thing I can assure is WE all have the same reaction from the moment of freefall until the device hits the ground. "Oh S$%!"

    Regardless of what certification it holds, tests it passes, case it is in, material it is made of, we all hope that it isn't damaged and continues to work as it did before.
    Aquila, Dngrsone, RaRa85 and 1 others like this.
    09-05-2017 11:42 AM
  17. irvine752's Avatar
    It is explaining the concept, not detailing what LG did. It explains both the concept of testing and the irregularities of testing. It also explains why most manufacturers don't bother with it.
    I agree, but you're still missing the point. The whole premise of the article was to outline why the standard was not applicable for phone cases. The so called "manufacturers" mentioned are really phone case manufacturers. It was never meant for add-on protection, it's really for benchmarking the structrual design for embedded systems. Taking the article at face value & treating it as true for the standard in general would be a hasty generalization, which would also be a fallacy.

    Also keep in mind the hidden title (html title picked up by web crawlers) of the article is "Military Drop Test Standards for Phone Case Aren't Strict." The keywords there being "Phone Case."
    09-06-2017 09:00 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    I agree, but you're still missing the point. The whole premise of the article was to outline why the standard was not applicable for phone cases. The so called "manufacturers" mentioned are really phone case manufacturers. It was never meant for add-on protection, it's really for benchmarking the structrual design for embedded systems. Taking the article at face value & treating it as true for the standard in general would be a hasty generalization, which would also be a fallacy.

    Also keep in mind the hidden title (html title picked up by web crawlers) of the article is "Military Drop Test Standards for Phone Case Aren't Strict." The keywords there being "Phone Case."
    Right, I agree it's not a good example, but the concept does apply to laptops and monitors and phones and tablets, etc. The same guidelines used and interpretation is based on the type of product, not any hard fast rules that are predefined.
    09-06-2017 09:02 PM
  19. irvine752's Avatar
    Right, I agree it's not a good example, but the concept does apply to laptops and monitors and phones and tablets, etc. The same guidelines used and interpretation is based on the type of product, not any hard fast rules that are predefined.
    Regardless of public perception, MIL-STD-810 is here to stay. It's technically a "living document" & will be updated periodically as new requirements, technology, testing methodologies or computational analysis capabilities are introduced. 11 years have transpired between revisions E and F and another 8 years between revisions F and G. They try not to predefine or hard code anything product specific to keep it's application broad. Transparency is the key, manufacturers simply need to be forthcoming with what Methods in the 810 they have actually tested to & disclose the information when they say their product is compliant with the standard (which LG has done).

    Claiming that LG is misleading the public is simply false. They used a 55yr old U.S. military standard & showed you the results. What more can you ask for as a consumer?
    09-06-2017 10:23 PM
  20. kraze4u's Avatar
    Military grade is a damn sales gimmick.
    09-06-2017 11:46 PM
  21. flyingkytez's Avatar
    This idea started here: https://forums.androidcentral.com/sa...ml#post5954136

    Long story short, LG for a couple generations now has been marketing some of it's devices as using "military grade" materials, implying that they are more durable than other products. Unfortunately, "military grade", in the context of civilian products, is a meaningless term.

    This is from the other thread, '..."military grade", when being used as a term that is not part of the spec requirements for a piece of military equipment, doesn't actually mean anything. It is a marketing term. One thing it might mean is that they are using the same materials as used in a piece of military equipment, but unless they disclose which piece of equipment, there's no way of knowing what exactly it is, if anything. Example, if they were saying the aluminum part of the body was military grade, that could mean it's the same aluminum used in fences, or in forks or in some parts of an Abrams or it could mean it's the same aluminum specs used for the eyelets of hooded t-shirts available in the Exchange.

    TLDR: "military" grade DOES NOT mean ANYTHING, at all, in the context of smartphones'.

    So here's a good example of how Mil Spec or military grade works:

    Mil Spec or military grade 440 steel, used in many products, including some knives, etc. is... 440 steel. It's the exact same product you can pick up at the Home Depot or wherever you choose to buy steel in bulk. If you're not in the military, you call it 440 steel. Is it military grade? Sure. But only because there are products that the military uses that material in. The product is exactly the same.

    So the "mil" part of it, doesn't tell you a thing about it. It doesn't provide any information about the strength, durability or intended uses, in any context.

    Mil Spec materials are simply materials that have been adopted to be used in at least one product that is used by or purchased on behalf of the military and the types of materials are thus labeled as to make them interchangeable between production units. So mil spec cotton is... cotton. Mil spec applesauce is applesauce. You get the idea.

    Another example, if you take your car apart, down to components. Nuts, bolts, sheets of metal and glass, plastic things and some rubber... more than 90% of the materials you have in front of you will likely be, in some degree, mil-spec or 'aircraft grade'. Yet your car is not rated for any theater on earth as a defensive tool. That theater bit is important, because if LG was instead stating that their devices were meeting 'military performance specifications' and specified in which theaters it is so rated, that'd be an interesting conversation. Because that would mean that the device was designed for and tested in conditions similar to anticipated military conditions. In general, we could assume that there is some implied durability or reliability standards being met. Sadly, that's not the case.

    Phones are made out of plastic, silicon, gold, aluminum, glass, etc. Some have ceramic and titanium, some have sapphire, some even have glue. If any of the materials used are also used in any product commissioned for or produced by the military, then that phone maker could label their device as using "military grade" products, and it's not a lie. But it's definitely misleading. Because it's implying that it is more durable than, or better performing than other devices... and that's simply not the case. Or at least it's not anything that can be learned from using those materials and/or that term.

    Finally, LG states that their device exceeds minimum standards for the MIL-STD-810G, and for this they are ONLY referring to the drop test, not the rest of the spec, which would protect against intense temperatures, pressure, etc. So here's the test: The device is dropped on each of it's 6 sides, 12 edges and 8 corners from a height of between 2.5 and 4.0 feet (30 to 48 inches) onto a surface that is 2 inches of plywood covering concrete. After each drop it is inspected for damage and at the end of the 26 drops, if it still works then the device passes. So let's ask an obvious question... do you know of a recent device that can't pass that test? Also, the drops can be divided, at the manufacturer's request, among up to 5 identical units. So it's not 26 drops to 1 device, it's 5 drops each to 4 devices and 6 drops to the remaining 1 device. Also, let's think about what "works" means. "Works" does not mean "has no perceivable cracks or blemishes". "Works" means that the touch screen still works, you can make calls, etc. The display can be mostly destroyed and the device can generally pass as still "works".

    TLDR part 2: LG is intentionally using a marketing term, "military grade" to imply superiority in build quality or build materials or durability, etc. over their competitors. Doing so is not lying, so long as some of their materials actually are MIL-SPEC materials. Yet, it is definitely not honest, because all of their competitors can do exactly the same thing. This term means literally nothing in the context of smartphones and the implications that LG wants to project are intentionally misleading and we should all agree to stop using this term as if it were a benefit to buying their devices which other devices lack.
    Thanks for the info, very informative. I know their previous V series phones were pretty durable especially with the V10 and its choice of materials. I highly doubt their new glass back phones are. Glass is glass and no matter what, I'll always be paranoid handling it, doesn't matter if it's Gorilla Glass 5, there's evidence it can scratch and crack. As we steer towards a glass back phone future, I am losing hope. I just want peace of mind and not have $900 go down the drain from an accidental fall.
    09-07-2017 12:31 AM
  22. flyingkytez's Avatar
    Military grade is a damn sales gimmick.
    Except for the Galaxy Active series. Those are built like tanks. The S7 Active survived 50 drops. It's not rocket science, it's all about choice of materials and how it's built. Today the choice is glass. Sure it looks nice but long term, I don't think it'll survive a tumble.
    09-07-2017 12:32 AM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Forget Gorilla Glass. They should make the bodies out of Pyrex. Their baking pans could survive a nuclear blast. Lol
    09-07-2017 04:23 AM
  24. Mike Dee's Avatar
    Forget Gorilla Glass. They should make the bodies out of Pyrex. Their baking pans could survive a nuclear blast. Lol
    This way when your phone heats up you can fry an egg
    mbryanr likes this.
    09-07-2017 04:59 AM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    This way when your phone heats up you can fry an egg
    Now that's multitasking!
    09-07-2017 05:00 AM
59 123

Similar Threads

  1. Do unlocked Samsung phones get updates quicker?
    By Bermuda_Man in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-06-2017, 09:55 PM
  2. LG g5 Flashes 0% Charge
    By Alin mihai 3 in forum LG G5
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-04-2017, 09:07 PM
  3. Silk Innovations - Base Grip Slim Case for the Samsung Galaxy S8/8+
    By DecAway in forum Samsung Galaxy S8 & S8+
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 11:06 AM
  4. Handling of the V30
    By SchinkenSpicker in forum LG V30
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 10:34 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 10:14 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD