Can we ask LG to stop misleading the public about it's "military grade" phones?

[Aquila]

This reminds of" Class A" materials or parts specified for use in nuclear plants by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Class A" stock simply meant that the supplier certified certain parts for use in nuclear applications. The screws, nuts and bolts and other hardware or parts were no different than what we were buying for non Nuclear plants, they were just certified to meet the spec. They class A designation meant we had to pay twice as much as the non class A. There was no difference in the hardware and it was supplied from the same vendor.

It's almost exactly the same concept. MIL-SPEC materials are the exact same thing as the exact same part without the MIL-SPEC designation. Example, if the specific alloy used to create this: DEWALT 20 oz. Hammer-DWHT51054 - The Home Depot is used in any single product that the military uses, then this hammer can be called "MIL-SPEC" or "military grade". It doesn't mean the military uses that hammer, or one like it or anything similar to that. It simply means that some or all of the materials are in common with military products. The only reason the SPEC exists is so that they can make sure they're getting the same thing over and over, for the interchangeability of components.

Now for those who served... does the military buy top of the line products for every single product they purchase? Or do they sometimes buy things a little cheaper than the highest quality item available?

The 810G rating is different from the above in that it is an actual standard, but the conditions are so loose that most products, including most electronic products, don't bother with it - because it's an absolutely meaningless concept for most consumer goods.

 

[Mike Dee]

It's almost exactly the same concept. MIL-SPEC materials are the exact same thing as the exact same part without the MIL-SPEC designation. Example, if the specific alloy used to create this: DEWALT 20 oz. Hammer-DWHT51054 - The Home Depot is used in any single product that the military uses, then this hammer can be called "MIL-SPEC" or "military grade". It doesn't mean the military uses that hammer, or one like it or anything similar to that. It simply means that some or all of the materials are in common with military products. The only reason the SPEC exists is so that they can make sure they're getting the same thing over and over, for the interchangeability of components.

Now for those who served... does the military buy top of the line products for every single product they purchase? Or do they sometimes buy things a little cheaper than the highest quality item available?

The 810G rating is different from the above in that it is an actual standard, but the conditions are so loose that most products, including most electronic products, don't bother with it - because it's an absolutely meaningless concept for most consumer goods.

They buy from the lowest bidder just like NASA does for the space program.

 

[RaRa85]

If it helps I've owned and dropped both the LG V10 and V20 on multiple surfaces from multiple heights and neither one of them have ever shattered into a hundred pieces or had to have a screen replacement. I don't know if the same can be said for other flagships these days. That's all that matters. I don't use cases on any phone I purchase. LG phones can survive physical abuse with minimal damage if any at all.

 

[dov1978]

There's a good reason for this. Everybody already KNOWS the Samsung and HTC flagships will not break, no matter how hard they are dropped. No one has a clue whether LG phones are durable, so LG has to highlight their durability, even if they have to lie, like they did with the 1.6 main camera.

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.

 

[Aquila]

If it helps I've owned and dropped both the LG V10 and V20 on multiple surfaces from multiple heights and neither one of them have ever shattered into a hundred pieces or had to have a screen replacement. I don't know if the same can be said for other flagships these days. That's all that matters. I don't use cases on any phone I purchase. LG phones can survive physical abuse with minimal damage if any at all.

Any experience with the glass backed ones?

 

[RaRa85]

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.

 

[Aquila]

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.

 

[RaRa85]

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.

 

[muckrakerX]

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.

 

[irvine752]

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.

 

[Aquila]

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.

 

[Mooncatt]

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?

 

[irvine752]

"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.

 

[Aquila]

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/phone-cases-military-drop-test-standards/

 

[dov1978]

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

 

[Mike Dee]

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

 

[anon(5630457)]

I agree with the OP. It's a meaningless marketing term. I never make purchasing decisions based on that stupid gimmick.

 

[Mike Dee]

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?

 

[irvine752]

Here is a source that the better at explaining it than I am

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/phone-cases-military-drop-test-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.

 

[Aquila]

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.