Drop test?

[Jdyount]

Let me start by saying: Yes, I know I am rehashing this conversation from an old post, but I wanted to start a new conversation on the issue.

Should consumers expect a phone to survive a reasonably small amount of abuse? I?m not talking about throwing the phone down or dropping it five times a day, I?m talking about one drop from less than 3 feet.

I have never broken a phone?s screen before this week. I am normally fairly carful with my phones, but, as I would expect with any normal user, I have dropped one once or twice. Accidents happen; I don?t care how careful you are. I dropped my DNA ONCE getting out of my car from my lap to the ground, less then 3 feet, and it shattered the entire screen.

I understand that gorilla glass is scratch resistant not shatter resistant, that?s not my point at all. I also understand that glass is glass but there is a process called tempering that makes glass shatter resistant. I have a Pyrex dish that has been dropped several times. Pyrex is more than just tempered glass and it is really thick, but it is still glass.

The other argument will be why didn?t you have a case? This brings up the entire point of my post: It is my opinion (stressing again, opinion, not expectation) that these phone companies should make phones to survive a reasonable drop test without having to buy a case. The emphasis is such that the phone should be sleek and light, but when it breaks the questions is always: Why didn?t you have a case? I didn?t have a case because I bought a sleek and light phone??? Why not factor in a standard of durability so that phones can be used as designed without the worry of just one slip? Even if they have to charge a little more for the phone, they?re getting it out of us anyway because the average user breaks their phone (x) times?.

Am I way out of base in my thinking?????

 

[Jennifer Stough]

Let me start by saying: Yes, I know I am rehashing this conversation from an old post, but I wanted to start a new conversation on the issue.

Should consumers expect a phone to survive a reasonably small amount of abuse? I?m not talking about throwing the phone down or dropping it five times a day, I?m talking about one drop from less than 3 feet.

I have never broken a phone?s screen before this week. I am normally fairly carful with my phones, but, as I would expect with any normal user, I have dropped one once or twice. Accidents happen; I don?t care how careful you are. I dropped my DNA ONCE getting out of my car from my lap to the ground, less then 3 feet, and it shattered the entire screen.

I understand that gorilla glass is scratch resistant not shatter resistant, that?s not my point at all. I also understand that glass is glass but there is a process called tempering that makes glass shatter resistant. I have a Pyrex dish that has been dropped several times. Pyrex is more than just tempered glass and it is really thick, but it is still glass.

The other argument will be why didn?t you have a case? This brings up the entire point of my post: It is my opinion (stressing again, opinion, not expectation) that these phone companies should make phones to survive a reasonable drop test without having to buy a case. The emphasis is such that the phone should be sleek and light, but when it breaks the questions is always: Why didn?t you have a case? I didn?t have a case because I bought a sleek and light phone??? Why not factor in a standard of durability so that phones can be used as designed without the worry of just one slip? Even if they have to charge a little more for the phone, they?re getting it out of us anyway because the average user breaks their phone (x) times?.

Am I way out of base in my thinking?????

The aesthetics of the phones which gives them their sleek look, ie glass from edge to edge, the sloping sides, etc, are what contributes to its fragility. The way it is constructed transfers the force from the fall directly into the screen, effectively shattering it. That is the price you pay for the sleek look that everyone wants in a phone. Everyone knows if you drop glass, it breaks. Even tempered glass can break if struck properly. One major difference between your Pyrex dish and your phone screen is the thickness of the glass. Gorilla glass is getting thinner and thinner with every generation, but supposedly more scratch resistant due to its coating. They have yet to create a shatter proof glass, but it could be on the horizon. The bigger and more pressing issue was how to create a screen that would be more resistant to scratches, as the average user uses a case, but not a screen protector. Thus gorilla glass was born. They have phones that are shatter and shock proof, dust proof, water proof, but they are not as aesthetically appealing. Its like choosing an old metal ford tank truck over a 2013 corvette. Old trusty won't total on you if you hit a curb, but it doesn't have the blazing fast internals or chic materials that the other obviously more appealing option. Durability is what we sacrifice when we want our phones bigger and slimmer. When phone screens were made of plastic, you never heard of people complaint about dropping their phones and breaking them. But glass is a more "premium" material, and so we must pay the price for our vanity.

Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA

 

[Jdyount]

I still think you missed my point, and you certainly missed my differentiation between opinion and expectation. You say most people use cases, I think using a case takes away from the phone's intended design. If a phone is intended to be used with a case, why doesn't it come with one? I strongly disagree that the larger issue has to do with scratches on the screen. You can still use a phone with a scratch, when the screen is shattered its a different story. The Pyrex point is an example of strong and scratch resistant glass, not a direct comparison. The fact is that other phones, with glass screens, stand up much better to dropping. I understand my phone's screen is easily broken due to the curved glass, that's not my point at all and I'm not try to pass blame. My question is why is there not a basic drop test standard for these phones?

 

[Rizz1-2]

Let me start by saying: Yes, I know I am rehashing this conversation from an old post, but I wanted to start a new conversation on the issue.

Should consumers expect a phone to survive a reasonably small amount of abuse? I?m not talking about throwing the phone down or dropping it five times a day, I?m talking about one drop from less than 3 feet.

I have never broken a phone?s screen before this week. I am normally fairly carful with my phones, but, as I would expect with any normal user, I have dropped one once or twice. Accidents happen; I don?t care how careful you are. I dropped my DNA ONCE getting out of my car from my lap to the ground, less then 3 feet, and it shattered the entire screen.

I understand that gorilla glass is scratch resistant not shatter resistant, that?s not my point at all. I also understand that glass is glass but there is a process called tempering that makes glass shatter resistant. I have a Pyrex dish that has been dropped several times. Pyrex is more than just tempered glass and it is really thick, but it is still glass.

The other argument will be why didn?t you have a case? This brings up the entire point of my post: It is my opinion (stressing again, opinion, not expectation) that these phone companies should make phones to survive a reasonable drop test without having to buy a case. The emphasis is such that the phone should be sleek and light, but when it breaks the questions is always: Why didn?t you have a case? I didn?t have a case because I bought a sleek and light phone??? Why not factor in a standard of durability so that phones can be used as designed without the worry of just one slip? Even if they have to charge a little more for the phone, they?re getting it out of us anyway because the average user breaks their phone (x) times?.

Am I way out of base in my thinking?????

I don't think your way out of base. However there are always trade-offs, as Jennifer mentioned.

I put part of your statement in bold for two reasons. First being that I would love some standard some where governing toughness of all cell phones. Secondly, sadly, it would be nearly impossible. Basically because almost every fall is unique. There is a near infinite number of ways the phone could strike the ground, also there is a large number of surfaces it could fall on. When the phone falls, does it have forward momentum? Is it landing on a sloped surface? How fast were you moving when it did fall? Once you cover all these types of questions, how then would you define a "reasonable" drop? Like you I prefer to keep my phone naked. I think for people like us all we can do is be careful and hope to get lucky if we do drop them. I wouldn't ever expect a standard to be written.

 

[DarkBeer]

Not trying to be a jerk, but I think all you need to do is look at the marketing materials for the phone and that should help you with what you should expect from it. They aren't marketing accidental drop protection. They are marketing scratch resistance and a high resolution display in a sleek, thin phone. Some things become mutually exclusive, and thin and sleek doesn't tend to be compatible with accident resistant. Ruggedized phones are quick to market the durability of their phones for what some might consider abusive use, but they aren't marketing it as slim and sexy.

 

[Jdyount]

Not trying to be a jerk, but I think all you need to do is look at the marketing materials for the phone and that should help you with what you should expect from it. They aren't marketing accidental drop protection. They are marketing scratch resistance and a high resolution display in a sleek, thin phone. Some things become mutually exclusive, and thin and sleek doesn't tend to be compatible with accident resistant. Ruggedized phones are quick to market the durability of their phones for what some might consider abusive use, but they aren't marketing it as slim and sexy.

I am not complaining about my phone or the Gorilla Glass AT ALL. I thought I made that fairly clear. You completely missed the point.

 

[Jdyount]

I don't think your way out of base. However there are always trade-offs, as Jennifer mentioned.

I put part of your statement in bold for two reasons. First being that I would love some standard some where governing toughness of all cell phones. Secondly, sadly, it would be nearly impossible. Basically because almost every fall is unique. There is a near infinite number of ways the phone could strike the ground, also there is a large number of surfaces it could fall on. When the phone falls, does it have forward momentum? Is it landing on a sloped surface? How fast were you moving when it did fall? Once you cover all these types of questions, how then would you define a "reasonable" drop? Like you I prefer to keep my phone naked. I think for people like us all we can do is be careful and hope to get lucky if we do drop them. I wouldn't ever expect a standard to be written.

This is exactly the type of discussion I wanted to have.

You are right in that there are infinite ways that a phone could fall and how that phone will hit. As a consumer, I would like to see an agency like UL create a rating system. They are known for finding ways to make things fail. While not a guarantee, they could create a rating system that says something like: drop/shatter resistant up to (x) feet, in most circumstances this device won't break if dropped from (x) distance.

 

[DarkBeer]

I am not complaining about my phone or the Gorilla Glass AT ALL. I thought I made that fairly clear. You completely missed the point.

I think your opinion and your expectation are one in the same. You feel there should be an expectation of a certain amount of durability in a fall of X feet. To my point, this phone isn't marketed in that way. There are phones that are, and people that need that durability would be wise to seek that phone out. As an analogy, I used to work for a company that sold Panasonic Toughbook laptops. At $4000, they were certainly much more expensive than non-ruggedized laptops, but their performance delivered on the expectations. If you want to have the phone companies start providing a durability rating for drops, what is next? How long the phone can survive a drop in the toilet before it short circuits? All of these additional tests and ratings lead to additional R&D time, and increased costs to manufacture a device that consistently meets these ratings. At some point there has to be some ownership of the issue by the consumer. You drop a slim phone without a case, it might break. It might even break in a case. I get it that it sucks, but how many situations can one reasonably expect HTC to account for?

 

[Jennifer Stough]

I wasn't saying you were complaining about your phones look or gorilla glass. I did not miss the point that these phones are meant to break so that the phone companies can make more money off of repairs and replacements. I was merely stating that these phones are not built to last like others. That is also the point in insurance for these devices, because they are fragile and expensive. These phone companies cannot and will not give us a standard for drops. There are a million and one ways a phone could fall, with too many variables like the surface it falls on, the height from which it falls, the way in which it strikes, to create a standard. And if they did summon a number, there would be consumers raising hell and demanding refunds when the phone didn't last what it was expected to, or conning the companies by breaking the phone and saying it fell from said distance. This is also the reason why otterbox stopped their guarantee that if your phone broke while in their cases, they would replace it.

Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA

 

[Jennifer Stough]

I still think you missed my point, and you certainly missed my differentiation between opinion and expectation. You say most people use cases, I think using a case takes away from the phone's intended design. If a phone is intended to be used with a case, why doesn't it come with one? I strongly disagree that the larger issue has to do with scratches on the screen. You can still use a phone with a scratch, when the screen is shattered its a different story. The Pyrex point is an example of strong and scratch resistant glass, not a direct comparison. The fact is that other phones, with glass screens, stand up much better to dropping. I understand my phone's screen is easily broken due to the curved glass, that's not my point at all and I'm not try to pass blame. My question is why is there not a basic drop test standard for these phones?

I am aware that you were not trying to pass blaim. That was not my intention of posting what so ever. Your phone is more prone to shattering from falls because of its design, yes. And while some phones with glass screens would fair better, no other phone with a similar or same design would. Phones with glass screens with a different design, say, raised bezels, would. My point was that phones are designed for specific markets. The slim, sexy phones that we are using are pinpointed at a market who prefers aesthetics over durability, this is considered an average consumer, whereas phones that are advertised as shock proof, dust proof, etc, are pinpointed to people whose phones are more likely to be put through the ringer, ie hikers, soldiers, construction workers, the non average users.

As for saying if a phone were meant to be used with a case, it would come with one, that is a bit of a ridiculous statement. Why do you think phone companies produce oem cases? Because its an in demand market. Why? Because the average user is aware that their phone is built for pleasure, not durability. These two markets are slowing merging with more durable materials being used to produce phones, like Motorola's kevlar fibers, flexible screens, etc. But we are not yet there.

Sent from my Verizon Droid DNA

 

[BBSeattle]

Let me start by saying: Yes, I know I am rehashing this conversation from an old post, but I wanted to start a new conversation on the issue.

Should consumers expect a phone to survive a reasonably small amount of abuse? I?m not talking about throwing the phone down or dropping it five times a day, I?m talking about one drop from less than 3 feet.

I have never broken a phone?s screen before this week. I am normally fairly carful with my phones, but, as I would expect with any normal user, I have dropped one once or twice. Accidents happen; I don?t care how careful you are. I dropped my DNA ONCE getting out of my car from my lap to the ground, less then 3 feet, and it shattered the entire screen.

I understand that gorilla glass is scratch resistant not shatter resistant, that?s not my point at all. I also understand that glass is glass but there is a process called tempering that makes glass shatter resistant. I have a Pyrex dish that has been dropped several times. Pyrex is more than just tempered glass and it is really thick, but it is still glass.

The other argument will be why didn?t you have a case? This brings up the entire point of my post: It is my opinion (stressing again, opinion, not expectation) that these phone companies should make phones to survive a reasonable drop test without having to buy a case. The emphasis is such that the phone should be sleek and light, but when it breaks the questions is always: Why didn?t you have a case? I didn?t have a case because I bought a sleek and light phone??? Why not factor in a standard of durability so that phones can be used as designed without the worry of just one slip? Even if they have to charge a little more for the phone, they?re getting it out of us anyway because the average user breaks their phone (x) times?.

Am I way out of base in my thinking?????

I think your thinking is reasonable.
Unfortunately "reasonable" does not appear to be on the table during these design pow wows.
Seems like most phones these days are pretty fragile and most certainly would not withstand any kind of drop on to pavement.
Then again as some have already suggested, a fragile phone means more purchases.

 

[Rizz1-2]

This is exactly the type of discussion I wanted to have.

You are right in that there are infinite ways that a phone could fall and how that phone will hit. As a consumer, I would like to see an agency like UL create a rating system. They are known for finding ways to make things fail. While not a guarantee, they could create a rating system that says something like: drop/shatter resistant up to (x) feet, in most circumstances this device won't break if dropped from (x) distance.

Let's create a hypothetical situation. Say there is a standard written that the DNA is able to withstand a fall from 5 feet on any surface. Someone calls up complaining that their phone broke when it fell from their lap to the ground getting out of their car. How does HTC verify that it was indeed only a fall of about 3 feet or whatever the average lap height is in cars? How do they know it wasn't dropped from higher or thrown? I think making a standard may also be too hard to verify. Too many people may be looking for a free phone when what they did to it was beyond what the phone could handle.

I was thinking about this more today and thought maybe some kind of shock sensor could be used. Kind of like the litmus paper to check for water damage, same idea. If the sensor would show it has been triggered or broken, then HTC would know the phone took more than the "x" amount of force a 5 foot drop should create. There would have to be thousands of drop tests to establish an average amount of force exerted on the phone upon impact. All of this though is only for structural integrity. When trying to establish a baseline for glass I think it probably gets more wonky.

 

[Jdyount]

Let's create a hypothetical situation. Say there is a standard written that the DNA is able to withstand a fall from 5 feet on any surface. Someone calls up complaining that their phone broke when it fell from their lap to the ground getting out of their car. How does HTC verify that it was indeed only a fall of about 3 feet or whatever the average lap height is in cars? How do they know it wasn't dropped from higher or thrown? I think making a standard may also be too hard to verify. Too many people may be looking for a free phone when what they did to it was beyond what the phone could handle.

I was thinking about this more today and thought maybe some kind of shock sensor could be used. Kind of like the litmus paper to check for water damage, same idea. If the sensor would show it has been triggered or broken, then HTC would know the phone took more than the "x" amount of force a 5 foot drop should create. There would have to be thousands of drop tests to establish an average amount of force exerted on the phone upon impact. All of this though is only for structural integrity. When trying to establish a baseline for glass I think it probably gets more wonky.

You could certainly track the drop with an acceleration sensor but I wouldn't necessarily expect these phones to be covered under warranty. The rating system would just be a marketing tool like Gorilla Glass is now. The benefit comes in when a phone is tested from a third party, like UL, their recommendation (rating) means that the phone is reasonably durable and should withstand the rated fall. Should being the key word, but should is better than nothing and it may cause these phone manufactures to create better products.

 

[Jdyount]

I think your opinion and your expectation are one in the same. You feel there should be an expectation of a certain amount of durability in a fall of X feet. To my point, this phone isn't marketed in that way. There are phones that are, and people that need that durability would be wise to seek that phone out. As an analogy, I used to work for a company that sold Panasonic Toughbook laptops. At $4000, they were certainly much more expensive than non-ruggedized laptops, but their performance delivered on the expectations. If you want to have the phone companies start providing a durability rating for drops, what is next? How long the phone can survive a drop in the toilet before it short circuits? All of these additional tests and ratings lead to additional R&D time, and increased costs to manufacture a device that consistently meets these ratings. At some point there has to be some ownership of the issue by the consumer. You drop a slim phone without a case, it might break. It might even break in a case. I get it that it sucks, but how many situations can one reasonably expect HTC to account for?

I fully expected my phone to break when I dropped it. I didn't even have to look at the screen when I heard it hit the ground to know it had.....

It is my opinion, in general, that smart phones should be durable enough to withstand the wear and tear of an average cell phone user within a two year contract. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe the average user will drop their phone at lease once, from a small distance, in two years.

 

[Jdyount]

and I never claimed that HTC made a bad phone or that I want them or Verizon to replace my DNA. Its my fault period. I just wanted to talk about general screen durability and my opinion that it should be greater.

 

[Rizz1-2]

You could certainly track the drop with an acceleration sensor but I wouldn't necessarily expect these phones to be covered under warranty. The rating system would just be a marketing tool like Gorilla Glass is now. The benefit comes in when a phone is tested from a third party, like UL, their recommendation (rating) means that the phone is reasonably durable and should withstand the rated fall. Should being the key word, but should is better than nothing and it may cause these phone manufactures to create better products.

Agree on pretty much everything. Although using an accelerometer may be tricky cause then you would have to keep an log of the life of the phone, or just have the data over-write every so often. Anyways, I bet that would motivate manufacturers to try for a good rating and brag about how tough their phones are, while still sleek and light.

 

[msndrstood]

I understand completely what the OP was trying to say. Just some standard that can be used to determine the fragility of a particular device. No one is expecting carriers/manufacturers to warranty against every drop scenario, but the consumer should be aware of the level of care needed to protect each device. I know, it should be obvious, but especially for new (and that was all of us at one point) smart phone owners, it would be nice if there was some kind of grading system. How many people new to smartphones would be aware that the back of a N4 is glass? That may factor into their decision if they are aware that one drop would shatter the entire phone vs a Motorola with a Kevlar back.

*Shrug* I don't know, but a grading/rating system makes sense to me.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[XenIneX]

*Shrug* I don't know, but a grading/rating system makes sense to me.

Such rating systems exist. Carriers sell phones that use them. The standards can get remarkably exacting. (TERRIBLE Flash-based promo site. Auto-plays music -- "off" link in the lower right. Click "Toughness" heading at top for specific standards met by device.)

And nobody buys these devices. They're chunky, heavy, ugly as sin, underspecced, and -- at release -- vastly overpriced. When that thing was new (and still underspecced), it wasn't any cheaper than getting it's non-ruggedized mid-range equivalent and tacking on two years of the Total Equipment Coverage. And it would have been cheaper -- and nearly as good for most people's purposes -- to just slap an Otterbox on said mid-range phone.

And before you say you want less exacting standards, nobody's interested in them. If someone wants any kind of durability standards, they want full-on "mil-spec" (meaningless as that is); anything less is inadequate. No-one's interested in whether a phone is rated to fall 2.5 feet out of a pocket into a partially-full laundry hamper. They want to know if they can back their Tahoe over it.

So, welcome to the new world, in which smartphones are becoming more like real computers -- in every possible way. Even the bad ones. Get a case.

 

[DarkBeer]

)

And nobody buys these devices.

Actually, we purchased 6 of them, and they're still in use today. We got what we paid for, a ruggedized phone that works in rough environments. One of our workers also lost his last year while out farming. It was found a week later after a couple of rains. Still works fine today. They aren't sexy or latest technology, but again, that isn't what the target audience is.

 

[XenIneX]

Actually, we purchased 6 of them, and they're still in use today. We got what we paid for, a ruggedized phone that works in rough environments. One of our workers also lost his last year while out farming. It was found a week later after a couple of rains. Still works fine today. They aren't sexy or latest technology, but again, that isn't what the target audience is.

Doesn't undermine my point. I'd be willing to bet that the only reason VZW keeps them on their shelves is that they'd lose corporate clients if they didn't offer something ruggedized. There's no way it drives enough sales to justify the shelf space, otherwise. Like Toughbooks, the only time you actually see one in the wild is in the hands of a field-service person.

Private theory: VZW intentionally has Casio design these things to be hideous to reduce non-corporate sales. That way, they reduce service requests from people under the misapprehension that "ruggedized" equates to a survivability guarantee.