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

[Law2138]

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.

 

[irvine752]

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."

 

[Aquila]

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.

 

[irvine752]

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?

 

[kraze4u]

Military grade is a damn sales gimmick.

 

[flyingkytez]

This idea started here: https://forums.androidcentral.com/s...l-real-king-arrives-lg-v30-9.html#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.

 

[flyingkytez]

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.

 

[Mooncatt]

Forget Gorilla Glass. They should make the bodies out of Pyrex. Their baking pans could survive a nuclear blast. Lol

 

[Mike Dee]

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

 

[Mooncatt]

This way when your phone heats up you can fry an egg

Now that's multitasking!

 

[Aquila]

The term "military grade" is what is misleading, because that term doesn't mean anything concerning durability or strength, etc.

Advertising that they passed the MIl-STD-810G tests, or at least 14 of tests, is a separate thing. It is not misleading to advertise that they built the device and it passed some of the tests, however it is misleading to imply that means it is any more or less durable than anything else.

The LG G and V devices are NOT ruggedized phones. They are simply phones.

Given that the testing requirements for IP ratings are more stringent than the 810G equivalent tests, it is safe to say that most devices with any IP rating can pass the exact same 810G tests (and so can most devices without an IP rating). So why doesn't every manufacturer do 810G testing? Because it is A) expensive B) meaningless and therefore C) pointless.

 

[Mike Dee]

The term "military grade" is what is misleading, because that term doesn't mean anything concerning durability or strength, etc.

Advertising that they passed the MIl-STD-810G tests, or at least 14 of tests, is a separate thing. It is not misleading to advertise that they built the device and it passed some of the tests, however it is misleading to imply that means it is any more or less durable than anything else.

The LG G and V devices are NOT ruggedized phones. They are simply phones.

Given that the testing requirements for IP ratings are more stringent than the 810G equivalent tests, it is safe to say that most devices with any IP rating can pass the exact same 810G tests (and so can most devices without an IP rating). So why doesn't every manufacturer do 810G testing? Because it is A) expensive B) meaningless and therefore C) pointless.

We will never stop product makers from suggestive advertising. It's part of doing business. The most we can hope for is for people to point things out.

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

LG promoting "military spec" drop protection is like Apple promoting their "Retina Display" (means nothing).

 

[irvine752]

The term "military grade" is what is misleading, because that term doesn't mean anything concerning durability or strength, etc.

Advertising that they passed the MIl-STD-810G tests, or at least 14 of tests, is a separate thing. It is not misleading to advertise that they built the device and it passed some of the tests, however it is misleading to imply that means it is any more or less durable than anything else.

The LG G and V devices are NOT ruggedized phones. They are simply phones.

Given that the testing requirements for IP ratings are more stringent than the 810G equivalent tests, it is safe to say that most devices with any IP rating can pass the exact same 810G tests (and so can most devices without an IP rating). So why doesn't every manufacturer do 810G testing? Because it is A) expensive B) meaningless and therefore C) pointless.

Most manufactuers strive for this testing, but you will only hear about it if they pass the certification. Why would they bother telling the consumer that their product failed the parts of 810G? It's also not expensive

MIL-STD is a ruggedness standard that's touted by electronic manufacturers. The two terms are synonymous. A phone that passes certain parts of the 810G is considered "rugged." Just like how the Samsung S8 Active is considered rugged, the same applies for the LG V series. You do get variations of "ruggedness" since other manufactures go above & beyond to exceed the norm.

As for Ingress Protection, it's not stringent. It's actually a subset of the 810G. It's literally penetration testing against solid particles & liquids/vapors. The test is not all inclusive. A device can sport two different ratings (ie IP62 & IP67). A device can fail a spray test (up to IP*6) but pass an immersion test (IP*7). Highly concentrated pressure at one point could affect an enclosure differently than distributed pressure you would get with submersion. The manufacturer would simply claim it's IP67 & IP62, anything in between would not be implied.

LG never claimed or implied that their products were more or less durable than others. The confusion stems from folks misinterpreting the terminilogy. They simply advertised the phone as "military grade" just like how Ford puts out commercials about their "military grade" F-150 trucks. Just like with any commercial, you typically get a little disclaimer on the bottom of commercial to get more information about the claim. If parts of the device or car complies with a MIL-SPEC, the use of the term is deemed acceptable.

 

[Aquila]

Most manufactuers strive for this testing, but you will only hear about it if they pass the certification. Why would they bother telling the consumer that their product failed the parts of 810G? It's also not expensive

MIL-STD is a ruggedness standard that's touted by electronic manufacturers. The two terms are synonymous. A phone that passes certain parts of the 810G is considered "rugged." Just like how the Samsung S8 Active is considered rugged, the same applies for the LG V series. You do get variations of "ruggedness" since other manufactures go above & beyond to exceed the norm.

As for Ingress Protection, it's not stringent. It's actually a subset of the 810G. It's literally penetration testing against solid particles & liquids/vapors. The test is not all inclusive. A device can sport two different ratings (ie IP62 & IP67). A device can fail a spray test (up to IP*6) but pass an immersion test (IP*7). Highly concentrated pressure at one point could affect an enclosure differently than distributed pressure you would get with submersion. The manufacturer would simply claim it's IP67 & IP62, anything in between would not be implied.

LG never claimed or implied that their products were more or less durable than others. The confusion stems from folks misinterpreting the terminilogy. They simply advertised the phone as "military grade" just like how Ford puts out commercials about their "military grade" F-150 trucks. Just like with any commercial, you typically get a little disclaimer on the bottom of commercial to get more information about the claim. If parts of the device or car complies with a MIL-SPEC, the use of the term is deemed acceptable.

No offense intended but I'm not going to bother with this. Lots of incorrect statements that have already been addressed earlier in the thread And I'm not convinced that this words are being read so seems a waste of time to add more to them.

 

[irvine752]

No offense intended but I'm not going to bother with this. Lots of incorrect statements that have already been addressed earlier in the thread And I'm not convinced that this words are being read so seems a waste of time to add more to them.

Almost forgot about this one...it's one thing to admit when you're wrong & it's also another to be oblvious to the facts... whichever route you choose is perfectly fine with me as long as you're happy.

Side note...I hardly even have enough time to read through all the LG threads on this forum, so I won't bother going back to the original thread to address any concerns or give tutorials. This thread alone has plenty of info for anyone willing to learn about military grade phones.

 

[Aquila]

Almost forgot about this one...it's one thing to admit when you're wrong & it's also another to be oblvious to the facts... whichever route you choose is perfectly fine with me as long as you're happy.

Side note...I hardly even have enough time to read through all the LG threads on this forum, so I won't bother going back to the original thread to address any concerns or give tutorials. This thread alone has plenty of info for anyone willing to learn about military grade phones.

No one was asking for a tutorial, just for a sincere dialogue rather than mere repetition of statements already either proven defunct or called into question.

So to be clear, there's no such thing as a military grade phone. The tests they performed do not make it military grade The term military grade has no meaning in 99% of consumer products, including 100% of smartphones available to consumers.

If we're arguing just to argue, this is pointless. Of you want to understand why those three statements are true and then continue from there, then there is a potential to address the rest, but we can't build a debate on a foundation of falsehoods and poor definitions, no matter how many times they are repeated.

 

[Randy Ohio]

Does LG use Military Grade solder on their motherboards? They have their phones tested for ruggedness, yet cannot assemble them with solder that is rugged enough to crack and cause then to bootloop. Mil Spec bootloops in the battlefield. I've personally experienced 4 Mil Spec bootloops from LG in the past few years. Great durability. They do make great handwarmers on cold snowy winter days.

 

[Mooncatt]

Does LG use Military Grade solder on their motherboards? They have their phones tested for ruggedness, yet cannot assemble them with solder that is rugged enough to crack and cause then to bootloop. Mil Spec bootloops in the battlefield. I've personally experienced 4 Mil Spec bootloops from LG in the past few years. Great durability. They do make great handwarmers on cold snowy winter days.

As far as I'm aware, the G4 and V10 (the solder bootloop phones) were not advertized as military grade/spec/etc.

Almost forgot about this one...it's one thing to admit when you're wrong & it's also another to be oblvious to the facts... whichever route you choose is perfectly fine with me as long as you're happy.

Side note...I hardly even have enough time to read through all the LG threads on this forum, so I won't bother going back to the original thread to address any concerns or give tutorials. This thread alone has plenty of info for anyone willing to learn about military grade phones.