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

[Aquila]

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.

 

[Mike Dee]

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.

It like the term Heavy Duty used for appliance and tools.... Means nothing by itself.

 

[Dngrsone]

Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Welcome to the wonderful world of marketing.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Mike Dee]

My thoughts exactly!

I think most of us are on the same page but some buy into it.

 

[muckrakerX]

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.

 

[MikeyBugs95]

Are you sure they won't break if dropped? The glass front and back?

 

[Mike Dee]

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.

I believe you

https://forums.androidcentral.com/s...lus/796653-5-day-old-s8-cracked-back-mat.html

 

[Mooncatt]

I've been saying a similar thing for a while, but let's take it one step further.

There is no independent verification or certification of these devices. It's up to the manufacturer to "self certify" that the devices passed the test. Given the variability of testing parameters, one manufacturer's pass may be another manufacturer's fail.

 

[lateck2]

What there can't be un-breakable glass????
I'm sure some military has it...... (maybe in 2065)

Lateck,

 

[Jeremiah Bonds]

Are you sure they won't break if dropped? The glass front and back?

If dropped enough.. My G6 flew out of my pocket and bounced around.

 

[shaimere]

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 did LG lie about? If you're referring to the "claims" about the camera not being f1.6, they have already been proven to be wrong.

 

[irvine752]

This idea started here:

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:

....

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.

I love playing devil's advocate. MIL-STD-810G is simply a durability compliance rating that happens to be certified by the DOD for the military & some commmercial products. It literally shouldn't be taken as if they're using the same material as you would find in materials used for the military. It's simply structural engineering at it's finest that yeilds similar results, & LG will not be spilling the beans anytime soon. They have every right to claim "military grade" build superiority till the rest of the competition can play catch up.

The drop tests you listed (transit drop) are just a fraction of the testing needed for the durability rating, there's so much more. LG posted some of the detailed test results for the G6: http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/g6/quality

Just so you know....this is also no different than Panasonic claiming their toughbooks are "military grade" or "rugged"...it's simply quality assurance for the consumer.

 

[Almeuit]

If dropped enough.. My G6 flew out of my pocket and bounced around.

Or at the right angle. I have had friends drop a phone down stairs and nothing. Another slide off his lap and hit the floor -- smashed.

 

[Aquila]

Are you sure they won't break if dropped? The glass front and back?

They're claiming it will still work, not that it won't be damaged.

 

[Aquila]

I love playing devil's advocate. MIL-STD-810G is simply a durability compliance rating that happens to be certified by the DOD for the military & some commmercial products. It literally shouldn't be taken as if they're using the same material as you would find in materials used for the military. It's simply structural engineering at it's finest that yeilds similar results, & LG will not be spilling the beans anytime soon. They have every right to claim "military grade" build superiority till the rest of the competition can play catch up.

The drop tests you listed (transit drop) are just a fraction of the testing needed for the durability rating, there's so much more. LG posted some of the detailed test results for the G6: http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/g6/quality

Just so you know....this is also no different than Panasonic claiming their toughbooks are "military grade" or "rugged"...it's simply quality assurance for the consumer.

The point was that the "military grade" term is a marketing term with no meaning on civilian products. The 810G tests that they did can easily be passed by every IP68 rated device. For most OEMs stating the IP value is enough, but LG is trying to imply they are more durable. They aren't and so there's nothing for everyone else to "catch up" to.

LG isn't lying, they're just stating something that is relatively meaningless in order to mislead potential customers. They also modified several of the tests without explanation, which is one of the problems with this "testing". They create and execute the tests themselves with no oversight. Example, 10 drops at 122 cm instead of the expected 26 drops.

Finally, none of this should imply that the phone won't be damaged by dropping or by liquid ingress, etc. It implies that the device has a higher chance of still working after that exposure.

 

[irvine752]

The point was that the "military grade" term is a marketing term with no meaning on civilian products. The 810G tests that they did can easily be passed by every IP68 rated device. For most OEMs stating the IP value is enough, but LG is trying to imply they are more durable. They aren't and so there's nothing for everyone else to "catch up" to.

LG isn't lying, they're just stating something that is relatively meaningless in order to mislead potential customers. They also modified several of the tests without explanation, which is one of the problems with this "testing". They create and execute the tests themselves with no oversight. Example, 10 drops at 122 cm instead of the expected 26 drops.

Finally, none of this should imply that the phone won't be damaged by dropping or by liquid ingress, etc. It implies that the device has a higher chance of still working after that exposure.

The term "military grade" simply implies it's something the military would use because it meets their standards (ie 810G). There's no hidden or misleading connotation behind the term. If Samsung or any other manufacturer could reproduce the same structural durability, they would waste no time in making the bold claim. It's a solid competive advantage over the rest.

IP68 & MIL-STD 810G are really not the same & the two are not interchangeable. An IP68 rating simply implies the device has some water & dust resistance. The MIL-STD 810G is much more rigorous & is a regulated by the DOD with a cognizant federal agency overlooking the tests & test subjects. If you look closely at the link I shared with you, there's a little disclaimer on the bottom that states "Passed 14 different MIL-STD 810G Tests for durability conducted by an independent laboratory in U.S. that conforms to U.S. military standards..."

The last part of your argument is correct. All these durability ratings simply offer some slight resistance & were never meant to offer 100% full resistance. They were meant to give the average consumer a peace of mind knowing that their expensive device could withstand a few accidents ie a few drops to the floor, exposure to water & etc with some reasonable limitations.

 

[Aquila]

The term "military grade" simply implies it's something the military would use because it meets their standards (ie 810G).

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.

 

[Mike Dee]

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.

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.

 

[Aquila]

Attached chart to show LG's tests for IP ratings and for their MIL-STD-810G testing. Note, they did do 11 more tests for the latter, not included in this chart. These are noted on the link previously shared.



As can be seen here, the IP Water Resistance and Particle Resistance tests have higher requirements for the test itself and for the requirements to pass the test. In water resistance testing, LG went above and beyond minimum standards for their IP68 ratings, making it that much more an improved test over the 810G counterpart. They added an additional 50 cm of depth which adds more pressure, etc. and they are validating that water ingress did not occur, not simply that it prevents the device from being usable.